1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICMTURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 1976 of 2008 Shekhar v. The State and ors ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr A.D. Mohgaonkar, Adv for petitioner. Mr A.G. Mujumdar, AGP for respondents. Coram : D.D. Sinha and A.P. Bhangale, JJ Dated : 31st July 2008 1. Heard Mr A.D. Mohgaonkar, the learned counsel for petitioner and Mr A.G. Mujumdar, the learned AGP for respondents. 2. The following facts are not disputed. That, the petitioner was appointed as Junior Clerk by respondent no. 4-management vide order dated 13.11.1995. The petitioner joined service as Junior Clerk on 14.11.1995. Proposal was forwarded by the management to the Education Officer for grant of approval which was given upto 2004-05 session. Subsequently, three posts were sanctioned in the cadre of senior 2 clerk and, therefore, the petitioner was promoted to the said post with effect from 31.3.1998. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was regular employee and, therefore, due to reduction of strength of students if the petitioner had become excess, he should have been declared surplus and should have been absorbed in some other school on the same post. However, in the instant case, the petitioner is demoted to the post of Junior Clerk and his basic pay is also reduced, which is impermissible in law. In order to substantiate his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of this Court in Shailaja Arunrao Nandurkar v. Dy Director of Education & ors reported in 1999 I CLR 894 and judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Zahir Khan v. Union of India & ors reported in 1993 I CLR 328. 4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, on the other hand, has submitted that though it is not in dispute that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Clerk, however, in the year 2005 the School Committee vide its resolution dated 30.9.2005 reverted the petitioner from the post of Senior Clerk to the post of Junior Clerk. This order has never been challenged by the petitioner till this date and is holding field as on today. It is, therefore, submitted that petitioner has been given pay-scale of Junior Clerk in view of the said resolution. 5. Considered the contentions and perused the decisions 3 relied on by the learned counsel for petitioner. There is no quarrel over the proposition laid down by the Supreme Court as well as this Court. However, situation in the present writ petition is entirely different. In the present case, there is specific resolution passed by the School Committee dated 30.9.2005 whereby the petitioner is reverted from the post of Senior Clerk to the post of Junior Clerk. This resolution dated 30.9.2005 and consequent order dated 7.10.2005 issued by respondent no.5 have not been challenged by the petitioner till this date and the same are holding field. This is a case of reversion where the petitioner is reverted from the post of Senior Clerk to the post of Junior Clerk and, therefore, till the order of reversion is altered, set aside or modified, question of granting pay-scale applicable to Senior Clerk, to the petitioner while working as a Junior Clerk does not arise. 6. For the reasons stated above, no case is made out for showing indulgence. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Judge. Judge. hsjoshi