IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8816 OF 2007 Ramesh B. More ...Petitioner Vs. Mrs. Manjula S. Lee & Ors. .. Respondents --- Mr. Suresh S. Shah for Petitioner Mr. Sudhir Prabhu i/b. Mr. N.V. Bandiwadekar for Respondent No.1 Mr. R.M. Patne, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 Mr.Mahendra Agavekar i/b. Mr.A.A. Garage for Respondent Nos.4 & 5. ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED 24TH APRIL, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the Respondents. 2. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Education Officer who has by the said impugned order held that the Petitioner is junior to Respondent no.1 in service. During pendency of the petition, the Respondent No.1 was promoted to the post of Supervisor by order dated 2nd January, 2008. Before that, rule was granted by this Court on 4.12.2007. However, no interim relief was granted. This order was challenged by the Petitioner before the Division Bench in LPA No.297 of 2007. The LPA was allowed and the order refusing interim relief to the Petitioner by the Learned Single Judge was set aside and the matter was remanded back for fresh adjudication. 3. The learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 has invited my attention to a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mesh Balkrishna Dispute vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in 2000(4) Mah.L.J. Page 564 and also a Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of St. Ulai High School and Another vs. Devendraprasad Jagannath Singh and another, reported in 2007 (1) Mah.L.J. Page 597. It was submitted that in view of the judgment of the Division Bench, which was confirmed by the Full Bench in the case of the said High School, the present petition is not maintainable and that the remedy which was available to the Petitioner was to challenge the order of supersession and promotion of the Respondent No.1 by filing an appeal before the School Tribunal under section 9 of the MEPS Act and also to challenge the order passed by the Education Officer who had determined the seniority list between the parties. 4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that in view of the Full Bench Judgment in the case of Devendraprasad Jagannath Singh (supra), he may be permitted to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to file an appeal before the School Tribunal with a further direction that the said appeal should be decided on merits. 5. The learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 vehemently opposes the above submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and submits that the application should be made by the Petitioner seeking condonation of delay and the said application may be decided by the Tribunal on merits, since the Petitioner was aware about the promotion of the Respondent No.1 which has taken place on 2nd January, 2008. 6. In view of the judgment of the Full bench in the case of St. Ulai High School (supra), it would be appropriate to permit the Petitioner to withdraw this petition with liberty to file an appeal before the School Tribunal under section 9 of the MEPS Act. 7. In my view, since the Petitioner has bonafidely filed this petition under the belief that the said order could be properly challenged in the High Court, the delay caused in filing the appeal will have to be condoned. The Tribunal, therefore, is directed to decide the appeal, which would file by the Petitioner within four weeks from today, on merits and in accordance with law. V.M. KANADE J.