wp10138.10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.10138 OF 2010. Lotan Chindha More. .. PETITIONER. VERSUS Mahatma Fule Vidhya Prasarak Sanstha and others. .. RESPONDENTS. ... Shri V.D. Sapkal, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri K.S. Ghute Patil, A.G.P. for R.No.4. Shri D.B. Shinde, Advocate holding for Shri N.L. Chaudhari, Advocate for R.No.2. Shri S.P. Brahme, Advocate for R.No.5. Respondents 1 & 3 served. ... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE,J. 6th DECEMBER, 2010. PER COURT: 1. The parties have no objection to dispose of the matter finally at the admission stage. 2. The limited grievance which is made in this petition is that by order dated 5th August, 2010 passed by the Presiding Officer, wp10138.10 2 School Tribunal, Nashik below application dated 22.7.2010 in Appeal No.21/2010, rejected the application of the petitioner for intervention. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. The Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein is working as class IV employee in the respondent institution. It is the contention of the petitioner that as per the Rules, Class IV employee is to be promoted as per seniority in Class III post. The petitioner is eligible candidate for the post of Laboratory Assistant and he has submitted an application on 26th February, 2007. The said application was filed before retirement of one Shri Pralhad Fakira Chaudhari, who was working as Laboratory Assistant. The management of respondents published an advertisement on 22nd July, 2007 for the post of Laboratory Assistant. It is the contention of the petitioner that the said advertisement wp10138.10 3 was given by the management only with a view to appoint respondent No.5 who is relative of the President. It is further contention of the petitioner that respondent No.5 was appointed as Laboratory Assistant, denying the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner has also disclosed in paragraph 4 of the petition that the petitioner has filed R.C.S. No. 59/2008. However, the suit is pending. However, the application for interim injunction is rejected by the Civil Court. It is further contention of the petitioner that the service of respondent No.5 were not approved by the Dy. Director of Education. The respondent management terminated the services of respondent No.5. The respondent No.5 filed appeal before the School Tribunal by order dated 25th June, 2010 granted stay to the termination order of respondent NO.5 dated 29.5.2010. It is the contention of the petitioner, as argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner is wp10138.10 4 directly affected party since he is aspirant and eligible for appointment on the post of Laboratory Assistant. Therefore, his intervention application in pending appeal before the School Tribunal should not have been rejected. Therefore, the Counsel for the petitioner would submit that this writ petition deserves to be allowed. 4. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 5 submit that the dispute pending before the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal is in between the employer and employee and, therefore, allowing the application of the petitioner for intervention in the pending appeal would amount to enlarging scope of the appeal before the appellate authority. Therefore, the learned Counsel would submit that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the wp10138.10 5 parties and on the basis of the averments in the petition and also the fact that the petitioner is working in the respondent No.1 institution as a peon and he has already filed application for promotion as Laboratory Assistant even prior to filling up the post by appointing respondent No.5 herein, the petitioner is an affected party and, therefore, the petitioner is required to be heard in pending appeal before the School Tribunal. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is working as a peon in the respondent No.1 institution and he has filed application for promotion as Laboratory Assistant, which is a class III post. Therefore, in my opinion, since the petitioner is an affected party, he is required to be heard before the appellate authority. 7. Therefore, writ petition is allowed in wp10138.10 6 terms of prayer clause (B). The application dated 22nd July, 2010 filed by the petitioner for intervention before the School Tribunal, Nashik in Appeal No.21/2010 is allowed. The School Tribunal, Nashik to give opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his case. Writ Petition is allowed to the above extent and stands disposed of. [ S.S. SHINDE ] JUDGE. ... PLK/*