1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO 5230 OF 2010. Vasudeo Mahadeorao Themse. .Vrs. Bharat Education Soc.,thr. Its Secretary, Bharat Mahila Vidhyalaya,Mahal, Nagpur and Others. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI & P.D.KODE, J J. DATED : 15.06.2011 Heard Mr. P.C.Madkholkar,learned Counsel for Petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 2 and 3, Mr. A.Parchure, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 4. None for respondent No.5 though served. The question is of entitlement to be promoted to the post of Head Master. Seniority of present Petitioner is not in dispute. The order on which the Petitioner is placing reliance dated 28th 2 September, 2010 finds petitioner senior and therefore directs that as per said seniority he should be appointed as Head Master. The further order dated 15.10.2010 of Deputy Director states that roster point needed to be looked in to and seniority was therefore not the only relevant norm. It is further found that though present respondent No.5 is junior to Petitioner, as per roster point vacancy needed to be given to VJ(A) category first. Government Resolutions are also relied upon for the said purpose. The Deputy Director therefore has directed the Education Officer to look into the controversy afresh. It is apparent that dispute was not only about seniority and hence Education Officer could not have passed any order under Section 11(b) of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service)Regulation Act, 1977 in this respect. His order dated 28.09.2010 or remand back to him by order dated 15.10.2010 is therefore unjustifiable. The selection of candidate for 3 promotion as per seniority and roster point is the job of Management as and when that decision is taken the same can be challenged before appropriate authority by aggrieved party. This Court has on 26.10.2011 granted interim relief to present Petitioner in terms of prayer clause(C) i.e. the implementation of order of Education Officer dated 18.10.2010 in favour of respondent No.4 came to be stayed. The petitioner was officiating as Head Master and in the background of this controversy, Management then nominated next below teacher namely Mr. S.D.Suranshe (respondent No.5) to officiate as Head Master for financial and administrative purposes. We do not find anything wrong with the arrangement made by the Management. As the Management has yet not effected any promotion we find the challenge premature. At this stage our attention has been invited to paragraph No.7 of the affidavit dated 10.03.2011 filed by respondent No.3. That affidavit only 4 discloses that proposal of Management to promote respondent No.4 Mr. V.S.Jadhav has not been accepted by the Education Officer. Effecting promotion is the prerogative of management and tit has to be after considering relevant statutory provisions. No such promotion under is produced before us or claimed to be in operation. We therefore find that the Petitioner has filed this petition is misconceived at least at this stage. Hence, Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE scd//