-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2417 OF 2002 K.P. Narayanan Kutty ...Petitioner vs. State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents Mr. V.D. Patil for the petitioner. Smt. S.S. Bhende, AGP, for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & R.M. SAVANT, JJ. DATE: JULY 09, 2010. P.C. Challenge in this petition is to the Government Resolution dated 2nd January, 2002, which provides that all appointments made to the post of Vice- Principal in Junior Colleges in pursuance of the earlier Government Resolution dated 10th March, 1998 should be cancelled. The petitioner apprehending his reversion by virtue of the said G.R. has filed the instant petition. By virtue of the aforesaid G.R. dated 2nd January, 2002, the seniority of the petitioner was required to be counted from the date when he acquired the training qualification. The petitioner acquired the said qualification after his original appointment. The question which is required to be considered is as to whether the seniority of the petitioner is to be counted from the date of his original appointment or from the date on which he acquired the training qualification. -2- Earlier, the Government had issued a Resolution on 10th March, 1998 which provides that seniority was to be counted from the date of original appointment. Subsequently by the impugned G.R. Dated 2nd January, 2002, it is provided that the seniority has to be counted as per Schedule-F of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981. As per the Rules, the seniority is to be counted from the date of acquiring the training qualification. The Government accordingly passed a Resolution on 2nd January, 2002 cancelling the G.R. Dated 10-3-1998, as the said resolution was contrary to the statutory Rules. 2. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that now the petitioner is already retired. In view of the same, the question involved in this matter has become academic. Since the petitioner is retired, the department may calculate his pensionary services and fix his pension accordingly in accordance with law. It is directed that no recovery should be effected from the salary which is already paid to the petitioner as the petitioner was promoted to the post of Vice-Principal by the institution as per the earlier G.R. prevailing at the relevant time. Therefore, no fault can be found with the petitioner by which amount of recovery can be permitted. The petitioner is not instrumental in getting his promotion to the post of Vice-Principal. In view of the same, nothing further is required to be done in the matter, except stating that no recovery should be effected from whatever salary is paid to the petitioner for the period -3- during which period he has served as Vice Principal. Petition disposed of accordingly. Rule is discharged. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. R.M. SAVANT, J.