wp4563.11.odt 1/2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETN. NO.4563/2011 Janta Shikshan Sanstha Chausala and another -vs- Ramesh Anandrao Patil and another ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri M. M. Agnihotri, counsel for the petitioners. Shri P. S. Patil, counsel for the respondent No.1. Shri Sonare, AGP for the respondent No.2. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : 17.10.2011. Heard. By this petition, the petitioners impugn the judgment passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati on 20/08/2011 partly allowing the appeal filed by the respondent No.1 and setting aside the order of promotion of petitioner No.2. It is an admitted position that the society runs only two schools and the post of the headmaster in one of the schools fell vacant on the retirement of one Mr.Bhise. The petitioner No.1 society appointed the petitioner No.2 on the post of headmaster. The respondent No.1 challenged the appointment on the ground that the respondent No.1 was senior to the petitioner No.2 and since there were only two posts of headmasters, neither of the posts could have been wp4563.11.odt 2/2 reserved for the reserved category candidate in view of the judgment of the Full Bench reported in 2006 (6) Mh. L. J. 882. The Tribunal rightly allowed the appeal filed by the respondent No.1 and set aside the promotion of the petitioner No.2 as the appointment of the petitioner No.2 was in gross violation of the law laid down by the Full Bench in the judgment reported in 2006 (6) Mh. L. J. 882. The order passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and calls for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The reliance placed by the petitioners on the Government resolutions dated 5th of May, 2009 and 27th of October, 2008 for canvassing that there can be a reservation even in case of two posts is not well founded as the Government resolutions dated 5th of May, 2009 and 27th of October, 2008 do not say so. Even otherwise, if it is held that one of the posts of the two posts of headmasters should be reserved for a reserved category candidate, then that would clearly exceed the total percentage of reservation and would be against the law laid down by the Full Bench in the judgment reported in 2006 (6) Mh. L. J. 882. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE KHUNTE