1 wp-993-10 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 993 OF 2010 Shri Shelke Maruti Bhagoji .. Petitioner Vs. The Municipal School Board At and Post: Khopoli and ors. .. Respondents Mrs. Anita A. Agarwal for petitioner. Mr. Nitin P. Deshpande for respondent nos.1 and 2. Ms. S.S. Bhende, AGP for respondent nos.4 to 6. Mr. Vishal Kanade i/by Mr. Sanjay Gawde for respondent no.7. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & A. A. SAYED, JJ. August 23, 2010. P.C. 1. We have heard Mrs. Agarwal, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Deshpande appears for respondent nos.1 and 2 and Mr. Kanade appears for respondent no.7. The learned AGP appears for 2 wp-993-10 respondent nos.4 to 6. 2. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the order dated 25/5/2009 issued by the respondent no.2 promoting respondent no.7 to the post of Head Clerk-cum-Accountant with effect from 1/4/2009 and for further direction to promote the petitioner in the said post in place of respondent no.7. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as a peon as per the appointment order dated 6/10/1976 and our attention has been invited to the orders dated 31/12/1981 and 22/6/1990 whereby he was appointed on temporary basis as a junior clerk. However, he did not possess the qualification for SSC pass and, therefore, he was not given regular appointment in the post of junior clerk. 4. The affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent no.2, opposing the petition, states that respondent no.7 came to be appointed initially on temporary basis as a junior clerk vide the appointment order dated 4/4/1984. In the selection process undertaken, in all four applications were received and respondent no.7 was one of such applicants and he was duly 3 wp-993-10 qualified for the post of junior clerk. He underwent the selection process and by the appointment order dated 29/6/1985 he was appointed as a junior clerk on regular basis. The affidavit further states that right from 1979 onwards the respondent-Municipality has been writing letters to respondent no.4 for sanctioning the post of junior clerk. 5. Be that as it may, the fact remains that respondent no.7 was appointed by following the due process of selection for the post of junior clerk as per the order dated 29/6/1985 and he was duly qualified. The petitioners appointment letter dated 22/6/1990 which he has relied upon itself indicates that he was not qualified for the post of junior clerk. In these obtaining circumstances, prima facie, it appears to us that respondent no.7 is senior to the petitioner in the post of junior clerk. However, this issue can be adjudicated upon by respondent no.4 while considering the proposal submitted by the respondent no.2 for the approval to the promotion of respondent no.7. 6. Hence, we dispose off the petition by directing respondent no. 4 to hear the petitioner, respondent nos.1 and 2 and respondent no.7 while considering the approval proposal pending and submitted by respondent 4 wp-993-10 no.2 for the promotion of respondent no.7 and decide all the related issues, including seniority, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three months from today. (A. A. SAYED,J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)