1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4174 OF 2009 Pradip s/o. Madhukarrao Saraf, Age 40 yrs., Occu. Service, R/o. Vivekanandpuram, Near Parimal School, "Ishwarkraipa" Latur, Dist. Latur. ....Petitioner. Versus 1. The Headmaster, Sanskar Vardhini Vidyalaya, (Madhyamic), M.I.D.C. Latur, Dist. Latur. 2. The Secretary, Sevabharati, M.I.D.C., Latur, Dist. Latur. 3. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Latur, Dist. Latur. ....Respondents. Shri. K.M. Nagarkar, Advocate for petitioner. Shri. V.M. Kagre, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Shri. K.M. Suryawanshi, A.G.P. for respondent No. 3. CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 20th July, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition challenges the judgment and order dated 29.12.2008 passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Latur, dismissing the appeal No. 246/2006 filed by the petitioner. 2 2. Notice in this matter was issued on 7th July 2009. The learned counsel Shri. V.M. Kagre appears for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, whereas the learned A.G.P. Shri. K.M. Suryawanshi appears for respondent No. 3. The learned counsels appearing for the parties agree that the matter can be decided finally at the stage of admission. Hence, Rule, made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, the matter is heard finally. 3. The petitioner had approached the School Tribunal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra School Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 by filing Appeal No. 246/2006, claiming the relief regarding fixation of seniority. The said appeal has been dismissed by the School Tribunal, vide its judgment and order dated 29.12.2008, holding that it has no jurisdiction to decide the issue of seniority exclusively. The decision of the Tribunal cannot, therefore, be faulted with, when it holds that it has no jurisdiction to go into the question of seniority. However, what the Tribunal has done in the last paragraph of the order is that it holds that the petitioner has failed to prove the fact that he was placed in seniority list below Shri. Anil Darekar and therefore, he is not entitled to claim any relief. Obviously when the appeal is not maintainable, such observations were not warranted and the same are without jurisdiction of the Tribunal. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the decision of the School Tribunal, he has moved the Education Officer for 3 the purpose of fixation of seniority, which has been held by the School Tribunal as competent authority and the said application is pending for adjudication. In view of this, it is made clear that none of the observations made by the School Tribunal on merits of dispute regarding seniority in between the petitioner and said Shri. Anil Darekar shall come in the way of Education Officer, while deciding such representation. The Education Officer shall be at liberty to decide the said application without being influenced by the order passed by the School Tribunal, in accordance with law. 5. In the result, there is no substance in the writ petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule is discharged. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J. ] ssc/wp4174.09