1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2774 OF 2010. Mr. Vivek J. Mhaske -: versus :- The President, Gram Vikas Mandal and others. 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, J. DATED : JUNE 28, 2010. Heard Shri A. Parchure, learned counsel for petitioner, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 4 and 5 and Shri P.S. Patil, learned counsel for respondent no.7. The School Tribunal has rejected appeal filed by the petitioner as not maintainable, after noticing that respondent no.6 was given extension by management in accordance with Rule 17[2] of the M.E.P.S. Rules. Shri Parchure, learned counsel contends that in the meanwhile respondent no.6 has also completed the extended term and again another person has been promoted as headmaster, which definitely constitutes supersession of petitioner. Shri Patil, learned counsel states that subsequent alleged supersession was never challenged before the School Tribunal. I have heard the respective counsel. I find that application of Rule 17[2] of the Rules and extension given to 2 respondent no.6 accordingly is not being challenged. The only contention that petitioner was the senior most qualified teacher available at the time of grant of such extension. It is apparent that the discretion exercised by the management under Rule 17[2] has been rightly appreciated by the School Tribunal. No case is made out warranting interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The subsequent event of positing as Headmaster was not raised before the School Tribunal and hence this Court cannot look into the matter. If the petitioner has got any grievance in this respect, with liberty to raise that grievance before appropriate forum, present Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.