pvr 1 WPl2286-10 IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (LODG) NO.2286 OF 2010 1.Balmohan Vidyamandir Vishwast Mandal, Mumbai & Anr. ...Petitioners vs. 1.The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents --- Mr.N.V.Bandiwadekar with Mr.Sunil S.Dighe, for Petitioners. Mr.M.D.Naik, AGP for Respondents. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & N.D.DESHPANDE,JJ. DATED: 14th October, 2010 P.C.: 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. The petitioner no.2 was working as Assistant Head Mistress, she was promoted to the post of Head Mistress. Petitioner no.1 submitted a proposal to the Education Officer for approval of the appointment because pvr 2 WPl2286-10 the school is getting grant-in-aid. By letter dated 18.8.2010, the Education Officer has declined to approve the appointment of Petitioner no.2 as Head Mistress on the ground that the post should have been reserved. The admitted position is that there are only two schools run by Petitioner no.1 Management. The total percentage of reservation provided by the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of service) Regulation Act, is 33%. Obviously, therefore, when there are two posts of Head Master, none of the post can be reserved. Reliance is placed on the Government Resolution dated 5.11.2009. Perusal of that Government Resolution shows that the Resolution is issued by the Government Administration Department where the reservation is shown as 52%. Obviously, therefore, that Government Resolution will not be applicable in relation to the institutions to which the provisions of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act and Rules framed thereunder are pvr 3 WPl2286-10 applicable. In this view of the matter, therefore, the Education Officer was not justified in declining to approve the appointment of petitioner no.2 as Headmistress for the reason which is given in order dated 18.8.2010. That order is, therefore, set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Education officer for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The Education officer shall pass appropriate order as expeditiously as possible in any case within a period of six weeks from today. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J.) (N.D.DESHPANDE,J.)