1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 3291/2008 (Ganpat Vishwambar Ambilwade Akola VERSUS Secretary, Bharatiya Sewa Sadan Akol & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Petitioner in person. Shri G.B. Lohiya, counsel for the R-1. Smt. S.S. Wandile, A.G.P. For the R-3. Shri A.D. Mohgaonkar, counsel R-6 & 7. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 09, 2009. Heard the petitioner in person and the learned counsel for the respondents. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the judgment passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati on 03.03.2008 dismissing an appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the action of the management in superseding the petitioner and appointing one Mr. Dhawale as a Headmaster. It was the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as an untrained graduate teacher on 13.08.1973. He had passed his B.Ed. Examination on 24.12.1980. He came to be appointed on the post of Supervisor with effect from 30.08.1994. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was shown junior to Mr. U.S. Chavan, Mr. P.B. Khandelwal and Mrs. M.B. Trivedi by the 2 Seniority list dated 01.09.2003. The petitioner had raised an objection to the seniority list by making a representation to the Education Officer. The Education Officer had finally by the order dated 26.12.2003 held that the petitioner was senior to the other three teachers i.e. Mr. U.S. Chavan, Mr. P.B. Khandelwal and Mrs. M.B. Trivedi. It is the case of the petitioner that on the retirement of Mr. Kale as a headmaster, the management ought to have appointed the petitioner as the headmaster, he being the senior-most teacher in accordance with the seniority list prepared by the Education Officer. The management, according to the petitioner, wrongly appointed one Mr. Dhawale in stead of the petitioner on the post of Headmaster. The petitioner, therefore, filed an appeal before the School Tribunal seeking a declaration that the order issued by the management appointing Mr. Dhawale, the respondent no.2 to the appeal as incharge Headmaster of the school, was illegal. The petitioner also sought a direction to the management to fill up the post of the headmaster as per the provisions of the Act and the rules by promoting the petitioner on the post of the Headmaster by giving him deemed date promotion with effect from 01.10.2003 and also pay him the difference of wages and of the consequential benefits. 3 The management filed the reply and denied the case of the petitioner. It was the case of the management that the appeal was premature as the petitioner could not have challenged the appointment of Mr. Dhawale who was merely appointed as an incharge headmaster. It was stated in the reply that the post of incharge headmaster was not a promotional post. It was stated in the reply that due to the pendency of Writ Petition No.2199/2004, the question of seniority of the assistant teachers had not attained finality and, therefore, the management had not appointed a regular headmaster and had appointed Mr. Dhawale as incharge headmaster. The Tribunal, on an appreciation of the record, held that the petitioner was not the senior-most assistant teacher in the school and Mr. Chavan, Mr. Khandelwal and Mrs. Trivedi were senior to the petitioner. The Tribunal reconsidered the issue of seniority by relying on the decisions reported in 2006(5) Mh.L.J. 322 and 2000 (4) Mh.L.J. 564. The Tribunal held that Mrs. Trivedi and Mr. Khandelwal were appointed on 23.06.1980 as trained graduate teachers and they were qualified to hold the post of assistant teacher on the date of their appointments only. The Tribunal held that the petitioner had passed his B.Ed. Examination on 4 24.12.1980 and, therefore, in view of the provisions of the Act and the Rules, the petitioner could not be held to be senior to Mr. Khandelwal and Mrs. Trivedi who were appointed on 23.06.1980 as trained graduate teachers. The Tribunal further held that Mr. Chavan was appointed on 24.08.1978 as a trained graduate teacher. He also, according to the Tribunal was, therefore, senior to the petitioner who had obtained his training qualification on 24.12.1980. Apart from deciding the issue of seniority and holding that the petitioner was not entitled to be promoted on the post of Headmaster, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner also on the ground that the petitioner could not have challenged the appointment of Mr. Dhawale who was merely appointed as an incharge headmaster and was not appointed as a regular headmaster. The dismissal of the appeal by the Tribunal on this ground also appears to be just and proper as it has been held by this Court in the judgment dated 15.01.2008 in L.P.A. No.77/2007 that an appeal against an order appointing a teacher as incharge headmaster would not be tenable in law. The Tribunal was further justified in rejecting the appeal as during the pendency of the appeal, the management had appointed on Mr. Khandelwal as a regular Headmaster by an order dated 5 25.10.2005 and the petitioner had neither amended the appeal memo by joining Mr. Khandelwal as a party respondent nor had challenged Mr. Khandelwal’s promotion by an independent appeal. The order passed by the Tribunal appears to be extremely just and reasonable and does not call for any interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE