WP/2650/2010 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2650 OF 2010 Shrikant Balappa Chougule .. Petitioner V/s. Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Kolhapur & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Dutta H. Pawar for the Petitioner. Mr. M.S. Topkar for Respondent No.4. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 13 TH AUGUST, 2010. P.C.: 1. The Petitioner has challenged his demotion from the post of “Lab. Attendant” to “Peon”. Admittedly the Petitioner was the junior most Peon. Respondent No.4 was promoted as a “Lab. Attendant”. However, there was some discrepancy in the proposal sent by the Respondent-Management and therefore it was not approved. The Respondent No.4 was not continued as a “Lab. Attendant” and was reverted to the post of “Naik”. The Respondent-Management then promoted the Petitioner as a “Lab. Attendant” despite being the junior most Peon. WP/2650/2010 : 2 : 2. In the meantime, the Respondent No.4 approached the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur. The Education Officer found that the appointment of the Petitioner was in violation of the rules, as he was the junior most Peon. The Education Officer, therefore, directed the Respondent-Management to appoint the Respondent No.4 as a “Lab. Attendant” after ensuring that the discrepancies which existed in the earlier proposal were removed. According to the Respondent- Management, they sent a fresh proposal for confirming the Respondent No.4 as a “Lab. Attendant”, which was accepted by the Education Officer. Consequently the Petitioner was reverted. 3. The Petitioner has not challenged the order passed by the Education Officer directing the appointment of Respondent No.4 as a “Lab. Attendant”. He has only challenged the order passed by the School Authorities demoting him. The School Tribunal has found, on the basis of the material on WP/2650/2010 : 3 : record, that the demotion was well founded as the Petitioner was the junior most Peon. The School Tribunal also considered the fact that the Education Officer had directed that the promotion should be granted to Respondent No.4 and not the Petitioner, as admittedly the Respondent No.4 was senior to the Petitioner. 4. The Writ Petition is rejected.