(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 4914 OF 2010 Dashrath s/o. Totaram Patil, Age : 56 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Kusumba, Taluka and District : Dhule. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Higher and Technical Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Deputy Director of Education, Nashik Region, Nashik. 3. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nashik, District : Nashik. 4. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Dhule, District : Dhule. 5. Kusumba Education Society, at Kusumba, Taluka and District : Dhule, Through its Secretary/Chairman. (2) 6. Suresh s/o. Ramdas Baviskar, Age : 54 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. C/o. M.K. Shinde Vidyalaya, Kusumba, Taluka and District : Dhule. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. V.D. Hon, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Tambe, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 to 4. Respondent nos.5 and 6 served (Absent). ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 30TH SEPTEMBER 2010 COURT'S ORDER (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. The petitioner has approached this court, seeking a writ of mandamus for grant of permanent approval to his appointment as Head Master of the school run by the respondent no.5 / management. 2. From the perusal of the seniority list, it appears to be (3) an undisputed position, that the petitioner is senior to respondent no.6. Not only this, but the respondent no.2, in the affidavit in reply, has categorically admitted in paragraph 6, that the petitioner is senior to Shri S.R. Baviskar i.e. respondent no.6 and, therefore, it was bounden duty of respondent no.5 to promote the petitioner as a Head Master, instead of promoting the respondent no.6 who is junior to the petitioner. 3. The situation appears to have been arisen on account of the fact that the respondent no.5 / management is running two schools; one is situated in Nasik District, whereas other one is situated in Dhule District. Therefore, it appears that the Education Officer, Dhule, overlooking this aspect of the matter, has granted approval in favour of respondent no.6. The respondent no.2 is an authority superior to the respondent no.3, as well as, respondent no.4. 4. In that view of the matter, we find that the interest of justice would be met by passing following order. 5. Hence, we pass the following order : (i) The respondent no.2 is directed to re-consider the issue regarding grant of approval for appointment of Head Masters in the two schools run by respondent no.5, in accordance with the (4) seniority of the teachers working in respondent no.5. The respondent no.2 shall decide the issue within a period of eight weeks from today, after giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned. (ii) Needless to state, that till the decision by the respondent no.2 i.e. Deputy Director of Education, the respondents / authorities shall act upon the pay bills signed by the petitioner. 6. With the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of. ( A.A. SAYED ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp4914