1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3127 OF 2011 (Gramin Sahakar Shikshan Prasarak Mandal & Ors. vs. The Education Officer (Secondary) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. SEPTEMBER 06, 2011. Heard Shri Bhandarkar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Parihar, learned AGP for the respondent. The proposal for approval to the promotion of petitioner No. 2 as Head Mistress and Petitioner No. 3 as Assistant Head Mistress has been rejected on 13.12.2010 by the respondent on various grounds. According to Shri Bhandarkar, learned counsel, there is no merit in any of said grounds. He further relied upon the seniority list to show that admittedly petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 are senior-most employees available for these posts. Shri Bhandarkar, learned counsel also relied upon the judgment in the case of New English High School Association, Nagpur vs. Baldev s/o Fakira Ade & Anr., reported at 2006 (6) Mh. L.J. 882, to contend that as there are only two Schools and two posts of Head Master/ Head Mistress or Assistant Head Mistress/ Master are available, roster is 2 not applicable. He further points out that dispute inter se between body about management also cannot be relevant and body actually at the helm of affairs has effected the promotions. Shri Parihar, learned AGP is supporting the orders. He is pointing out that when there are two posts available, roster can be applied and reservation can be implemented by rotation. The judgment of this Court supra clinches the controversy and there is no question of any reservation when there are only two Schools. It appears to us from the seniority list that petitioners No. 2 & 3 are the senior-most employees in the School. In this situation, the action of management in promoting them cannot be faulted with. It is also clear that group in management, actually controlling the affairs and administration, has passed the resolution. The other group is not involved in any way and hence the reason of internal dispute in society, given by the Education Officer, is irrelevant and misconceived. The insistence of learned AGP that proposal was not forwarded within the time limit prescribed in Rule 8(2) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, is also misconceived in this situation. However, we are not concluding the issue on facts at this stage. Admittedly, the impugned order has 3 been passed without hearing the petitioners. Hence, we direct the respondent to hear the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in the matter as early as possible and in any case within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order to the respondent. The impugned order dated 13.12.2010 is accordingly quashed and set aside. Writ Petition is disposed of. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.