1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.4173 OF 2008 Chandrakant Yashwantrao Raut. .vs. Madhukar Sadashivrao Dharamthok ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's directions and Registrar's orders. Order. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram: C.L.PANGARKAR,J. Dated : 15th JUNE, 2009. 1. Heard Mr.N.S.Adbe, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.M.Bhangde, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the original appellant before the School Tribunal challenging the order of Tribunal whereby the School Tribunal had partly allowed the appeal. 3. The petitioner was appointed as an assistant teacher in the unaided school. He was promoted in the year 1990. However, subsequently respondent no.2 was also promoted but while promoting him his date of promotion was declared as 17/7/1989. 2 The petitioner felt aggrieved and therefore approached the School Tribunal. The School Tribunal as a fact found that respondent no.2 was not and could not have been promoted w.e.f. 17/7/1989 and declared that respondent no.2 is deemed to have been promoted w.e.f. 1/6/1991. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the second leg of the order that is the declaration of date of the promotion of respondent no.2. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the School Tribunal had no authority to declare the date of the promotion of respondent no.2. At the most it could have set aside the order of promotion as 17/7/1989. He submits that the petitioner does not challenge that part of the order but second part of the order is patently illegal. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner was already promoted in the year 1990 and in any case the School Tribunal has observed that the petitioner was promoted in the year 1990 and respondent no.2 is deemed to be promoted in 1991 and hence apparently respondent no.2 is shown to be junior to the petitioner even in the grade of headmaster. He submits that, therefore, the petitioner has no right to challenge the order as it does not affect any of his rights. 6. There cannot be any doubt that the school tribunal 3 could not have declared the date of promotion of respondent no.2. But at the same time one has to bear in mind that none of the rights of the petitioner, in fact, is affected by declaring the date of promotion of respondent no.2 as 1991 as the petitioner is already promoted in the year 1990 and he can be said to be senior to respondent no.2. In view of this, for only academic purpose, I need not entertain the petition. The writ petition is sans merits. It is dismissed in limine. JUDGE. chute