1 W.P.No.5279.10 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5279 OF 2010 Anand Keshav Marathe ... Petitioner v/s Rajapur Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Rajapur & ors. ... Respondents Mr.Sunil Dighe for the petitioner. Mr.A.M.Joshi for Respondent No.1. Mr.S.A.Ghaisas for respondent No.5. Ms S.S. Bhende, A.G.P. for Resp. Nos.3, 4 and 6. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 16TH DECEMBER, 2010 P.C.: 1. The petition has been preferred against an order passed by the School Tribunal on 22.6.2010. The School Tribunal has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner in which he had contended that he had been superseded illegally. According to the petitioner, he was the senior-most Assistant Teacher and was eligible for being appointed as the Head of the School on the retirement of the earlier Head 2 W.P.No.5279.10 Master. However, it appears that the management, instead of appointing the petitioner, who admittedly was senior, appointed respondent No.5. This was because, in the opinion of the management, the petitioner was not suitable for the post of Head Master as his behaviour was not satisfactory. 2. Rule 3 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Rules provides that the Head of the School must be appointed from amongst the Assistant Teachers in Category ‘’C’’. The senior-most Assistant Teacher is to be appointed as the Head of the School, provided his confidential service record is satisfactory. The management has found that the confidential service record of the petitioner was not satisfactory because he had remained absent for four days without submitting a leave application and because he was adamant and quarrelsome. 3. The Tribunal has held that the supersession could not be termed as illegal as the requirement of the confidential service record being satisfactory was not fulfilled by the petitioner. 4. Mr.Dighe appearing for the petitioner submits that the adverse remarks regarding four days’ leave could not be 3 W.P.No.5279.10 termed as ‘’adverse’’. According to him, the adverse remarks ought to have been expunged by the management. He submits that the petitioner had made all attempts to have them expunged by approaching the management as well as the Deputy Director of Education. He points out that, in fact the Deputy Director of Education had directed the management to expunge the remarks, against which order the management had filed Writ Petition No.8935 of 2009. The Division Bench of this Court directed the management to reconsider the representation of the petitioner for expunging the remarks while concluding that the Deputy Director of Education had no power to direct the management to expunge the remarks. After the management has reconsidered the remarks on the representation made by the petitioner, the adverse remarks continued to be on the service record of the petitioner. The petitioner has not challenged these remarks. In the appeal which was filed on 22.10.2008 there is no ground raised by the petitioner to challenge those adverse remarks. Although he had approached the management on several occasions prior to filing of the appeal to reconsider the decision about the adverse remarks, the petitioner has not challenged the same in his appeal. For the first time, he urged the Deputy Director to expunge the remarks after filing the appeal i.e. 4 W.P.No.5279.10 on 29.8.2009. 5. In these circumstances, the Tribunal has concluded that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in view of the adverse remarks. In my opinion, the Tribunal has not committed any error by dismissing the appeal. Unless the confidential service record of the candidate is clear, the question of appointing the person as a Head Master does not arise, although he may be the senior-most Assistant Teacher. 6. Writ petition rejected. ..... 5 W.P.No.5279.10