1 947310 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9473 OF 2010 Vijay Pandurang Jagre ...Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra &Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Bhavesh Parmar i/by Ms. Sandhya Mailagir for the Petitioner Mr. C.R. Sonawane, A.G.P., for Respondents No. 1 to 3 Mr. Anil Joshi for Respondent No. 4 Mr. Surel Shah for Respondent No. 5 CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE: 28TH APRIL, 2011 P.C.:- Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that his claim for being appointed as Head Master of the school has been overlooked, and, instead, respondent No.5 has been appointed in that post. 3. It appears that respondent No.5 has been appointed as Head Master in year 2007 pursuant to the order passed by the Education 2 947310 Officer. Since the said order was passed without considering the claim of the petitioner, the petitioner made representation to the Management as well as the Education Officer on 28th October, 2010. Copy of the said representation is at page 29 of the Writ Petition Paper Book (Exhibit ‘B’). It appears that the Management has already rejected the representation of the petitioner, but the issue regarding purported supersession of the petitioner in the matter of promotion could also and ought to be addressed by the Education Officer if such grievance is brought before him. The Education Officer, it is common ground, has so far not passed any order on the representation made by the petitioner dated 28th October, 2010. Indeed, according to the Management, the claim of the petitioner suffers from delay and laches. Even this issue will have to be considered by the Education Officer while considering the representation made by the petitioner. 4. We would dispose of this petition, with direction to the Education Officer to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 28th October, 2010 (Exhibit ‘B’ at page 29 of the Writ Petition Paper Book) as expeditiously as possible, in any case not later than eight weeks from receipt of order either from the office of the Government Pleader, High Court, or the petitioner, whichever is earlier. Needless to observe that 3 947310 the Education Officer will give an opportunity to all concerned, including respondent No. 5 and the Management, and observe principles of natural justice while deciding the representation of the petitioner. 5. We make it clear that the Education Officer is free to decide the said representation on its own merits, including on the question as to whether the same suffers from delay and laches. 6. We are in agreement with the stand taken by the counsel for respondents No. 4 and 5 that, in the event the decision of the Education Officer is adverse to the petitioner, it will be open to him to carry the matter in appeal under Section 9 of the MEPS Act of 1977 before the School Tribunal. In that case, the School Tribunal shall decide the said proceedings on their own merits, in accordance with law. All questions are left open. 7. We make it clear that, if the decision of the Education Officer is adverse to respondent No. 5, the same shall not be given effect to for a period of two weeks from the date of the order to enable respondent No.5 to challenge the same before appropriate forum, as respondent No. 5 is already working as Head Master for the last three years. 4 947310 8. The counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to the fact that Writ Petition No. 7076 of 2007 is pending in this Court, which challenges the appointment of respondent No.5 as Head Master. In the event the said writ petition is not finally disposed of before the decision taken by the Education Officer, the School Tribunal may reject the appeal preferred by the petitioner on that count. The counsel for respondents No. 4 and 5 as well as the learned A.G.P. submits that the pendency of the said petition has no bearing on the question raised by the petitioner in the present petition, because the core issue that need to be addressed in the representation made by the petitioner is about his eligibility to be promoted to the post of Head Master and whether he has been superseded by appointing respondent No. 5, which is personal to the petitioner, whereas the challenge pending in Writ Petition No. 7076 of 2007 is at the instance of Usha Chaudhary, some other employee, who has already retired. In other words, the respondents would not raise the objection of maintainability of the appeal before the School Tribunal on this count, if so filed by the petitioner. 9. This petition is disposed of on the above terms. MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.