1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.2538 OF 2009. RAMESH YADAVRAO NEWAL, R/O. RASULABAD ROAD, HIND NAGAR, WARDHA, TQ. DIST. WARDHA. .. VERSUS .. (1) RAVINDRANATH TAGORE SHIKSHAN MANDAL, WARDHA, (2) THE EDUCATION OFFICER (SEC) Z.P. WARDHA & (3) SHRI SHARAD NAMDEORAO PUROHIT, R/O. RASULABAD, TQ. ARVI, DISTT. WARDHA. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Gopal G. Mishra, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri A.S. Chandurkar, Advocate for Respondent No.3. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : JANUARY 28, 2010. 1. This petition is directed against finding recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Additional School Tribunal, Chandrapur holding the petitioner to be junior to respondent No.3. No relief as such is sought in the petition. 2. The petitioner contends that he had been appointed, for the first time, on 23rd June, 1986 as a graduate teacher. He passed his B. P.Ed. soon after his appointment. At the time of appointment the petitioner was an untrained teacher. He came to be successively appointed by order dated 30th June, 1987 and 23rd July, 1989 for one academic session each. According to the petitioner, by order dated 23rd July, 2 1989 his appointment was regularised and he has been continuously serving, as such, from then onwards. 3. Respondent No.3 was appointed as trained graduate teacher, for the first time, on 18.12.1988 for the session ending on 5th May, 1989. Thereafter he was again appointed for the next academic session by order dated 28.06.1989 and the appointment continued by order dated 28.06.1990, 09.05.1991 etc. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the petitioner was obviously senior to respondent No.3 and contrary finding, recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal while dealing with the appeals of respondent No.3 and one Sharad Balwant Shende, was improper. 4. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for respondent No.3, the petitioner was appointed against reserved vacancy and therefore, his appointment had not been approved by the Education Officer. The approval was granted on year to year basis. On the other hand, respondent No.3, who belongs to reserved category, was appointed for the post meant for that category and therefore, his appointment was treated as regular right from the date of first 3 appointment i.e. 19.12.1988. Initially, approval which was granted from 01.07.1990 by letter dated 26.03.1993 was corrected by the Education Officer by letter dated 04.06.1998 which has been duly taken into consideration by the Tribunal. Since the petitioner was holding the post for which he was not entitled to occupy, as it was reserved, and since his appointment was thus, on year to year basis, whereas appointment of respondent No.3, right from 19.03.1988 was for the post which he was entitled to occupy, it cannot be said that the Tribunal erred in holding respondent No.3 to be senior to the petitioner The petition is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE RR..