IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 271 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3891 OF 2009. WITH CIVIL APPLICAITON NO. 266 OF 2009. Mrs.Uma Ramakant Kulkarni ..... ..... ...Appellant. V/s Education Officer Secondary Zilla Parishad, Sangli & Ors. ..... ..Respondents. Mr.R.S.Apte, Sr. Adv. i/by Mr.Amit Sale, Adv. for the appellant. Mr.S.D.Rairkar AGP for respondent No.3. Mr.A.A.Kumbhakoni, i/by Mr.A.M.Kulkarni, Adv. for the respondent No.1. Mr.Ghavnekar i/by Mr.Indrajit Joshi, Adv. For resondent No.2. CORAM: J.N. PATEL, ACTING C.J. AND B.R.GAVAI, J. 14th JANUARY, 2010. PC: The appellant takes exception to the judgment and order dated 18.8.2009 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.3891/09 thereby dismissing the petition filed by the present appellant challenging the order passed by the learned School Tribunal thereby allowing the appeal filed by respondent No.1. 2. Shri Kumbhakoni, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent 1 No.1 raises preliminary objection regarding maintainability of present appeal. It is submitted by learned counsel that the petition was filed under article 227 of the Constitution of India so also the jurisdiction which was exercised by learned Single Judge was under article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is therefore submitted that the appeal would not be tenable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent. 3. Shri Apte, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant­ petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal so also the learned Single Judge have failed to take into consideration that the claim of respondent No.1 was not entitled to be considered on two grounds; firstly the appeal was filed almost after 13 years from the alleged supersession and further that the learned Tribunal and the learned Single Judge have failed to take into consideration that the petitioner was senior to respondent No.1. 4. We have perused the judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal so also by the learned Single Judge. Apart from the question of jurisdiction raised by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 we find that the present appeal is without any merit. 5. In so far as the contention regarding the appeal being filed after a period of 13 years is concerned, we find that the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the respondent No.1 after reinstatement in pursuance to the orders passed by the learned Tribunal in 1997 had to wait till the decision of writ 2 petition No.2634/97 filed in this Court by the management. It has been found that after dismissal of the said writ petition on 9.72007 the petitioner had also filed writ petition No.5304/07 in this court and in the said petition this Court had permitted the respondent No.1 herein to challenge his supersession before the learned School Tribunal. In this view of the matter learned Single Judge found that the contention regarding delay was without any substance. We, therefore, do not find that the learned Single Judge erred in taking this view. 6. In so far as the contention regarding petitioner being senior is concerned learned Single Judge on the basis of material on record has found that the petitioner was appointed as full time teacher in the year 1995 and therefore on the basis of material available on record it was crystal clear that the respondent No.1 was senior to the petitioner and was entitled to be promoted as Head Master on 22.6.1997. We do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order warranting interference. Hence appeal is dismissed. In view of dismissal of appeal civil application NO.266/2009 does not survive and the same also stands disposed of. (ACTING C.J.) (B.R. GAVAI, J.) 3