1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.4232 OF 2009 Prakashchand Laxmichand Jain. ...PETITIONER V E R S U S The President Hindi Seva Mandal and ors. ..RESPONDENTS. Shri.S.P.Brahme, Advocate for the petitioner. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J : DATE : 15th JULY, 2009 PER COURT :- 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner takes an exception to the order dated 24.03.2009 vide which an appeal filed by the present petitioner challenging the supper annuation came to be rejected. 2- The petitioner has preferred said appeal challenging that petitioner and respondent NO.4 are working in Shri Sant Gadge Maharaj Hindi Vidyalaya, Bhusawal. According to the petitioner, though he was senior, he was superceded by the respondent No.4. Being aggrieved thereby, an appeal was preferred which was dismissed. Hence present writ petition. 3- Shri Brahme, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that though the learned Tribunal has held that the petitioner is more qualified than the respondent No.4 in all respect, still the appeal has been allowed only on the ground that the name of the respondent No.4 is notified under section 3 (2) of the MEPS Act. He challenges the order of School Tribunal on two grounds. Firstly that the notification of respondent No. 4 is after 45 days, of his appointment and as such, the notification cannot be made retrospectively applicable so as to give benefit of Section 3 (2) of the Act. Secondly that unless notification is accepted by the authority of the Education Officer, it is not valid in law. 4- Section 3 (2) of the Act reads thus :- 2 “ 3.Application of Act (1)--- (2). Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the provisions of this Act shall not apply to the recruitment (of the Head of a minority school and) any other persons (not exceeding three) who are employed in such school and whose names are notified by the Management to (the Director or, as the case may be), the Deputy Director for this purpose.” 5- Perusal of sub section 2 would reveal that the management is entitled to notify the names of three other persons in addition to the head to whom the provisions of said act shall not apply. It is thus clear that the notification pertaining to the post is only in respect of head and in so far as other three are concerned, it could be concerning any employees working in the school. The only requirement is that total number shall not exceed three. Admittedly, it is not the case of the petitioner that after notification of the respondent No.4 number has exceeded three excluding head. As already discussed above, notification in so far as the said three person is concerned, it is related to the person only. I do not find that merely because the name of the respondent No. 4 has been notified after a period of 45 days after his promotion, it could be said that he is not entitled to Sub section 2 of Section 3 unless it is proved that after his notification number of persons given benefit of sub section 2 of section 3 exceeds three. 6- So far as second submission is concerned, plain reading of the statutory provisions, would show that only requirement is that names of three persons are required to be notified to the Director or as the case may be to the Deputy Director. There is no provision in the statute which requires acceptance of the same by any of the authorities of the Education Department. In that view of the matter, I do not find any substance in the second ground. Petition therefore stands rejected. aaa/wp4232.09 ( B. R. GAVAI, J. )