1 I N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 413 OF 2010 Ku. Nirmala d/o Haribhau Akhade v. Mah. Shikshan Prasarak Mandal & ors. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's and Registrar's orders orders ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. P.D. Randive Advocate for the appellant. Mr. A.Z. Jibhkate Advocate for Res. no.2. Mrs. Rashi Deshpande, AGP, for Res. no.4. ..... CORAM: J.P. DEVADHAR & A.B.CHAUDHARI, JJ. RESERVED ON : 15 th OCTOBER, _2010. PRONOUNCED ON : 20.10.2010. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 22.6.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 605 of 2004, the appellant has preferred the present letters patent appeal. 2. In support of appeal, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the order of the year 1997 that was put to challenge in the appeal before the School Tribunal was an order of confirmation of respondent no.2 in the substantive order of appointment made in the year 1995 regarding promotion of respondent no.2 and therefore the learned Single Judge erred in holding that there was 2 no challenge to the promotion order. 3. We have gone through the impugned judgment and order made by the learned Single Judge. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, we find that though promotion of respondent no.2 was made in the year1995 to the full knowledge of the appellant in the post of Head Master, the appellant never challenged that order of promotion before the School Tribunal, but he put to challenge the order dated 19.12.1997 which was not an order of promotion but the order confirming respondent no.2 in the promotional post of Head Master. We, therefore, fully concur with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that there was no challenge to the substantive order of promotion that was made. That apart, the learned Single Judge also found that respondent no2. was working as Head Master since 1984 and the appellant raised no objection till she filed appeal before the School Tribunal. She never challenged the seniority list. We, therefore, concur with the said reasons. We find no substance in the present letters patent appeal and the same is dismissed being devoid of any merit. JUDGE JUDGE /TA/ 3