- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.58 OF 2008 IN L.P.A. NO.10 OF 2001 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4675 OF 2000 ... Smt.Lata Mohan ...Appellant v/s. Kum.Saroj J. Kamble & ors. ...Respondents ... Mr.Mihir Desai for the appellant. Mr.R.S.Apte i/b Mr.A.A.Garge for the Respondent No.1. Mr.Prabhu i/b Mr.N.V.Bandiwadekar for Respondent No.2. Mr.S.P.Kadam for Respondent No.3. ... - 2 - CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & A.A.SAYED JJ. DATED: 12TH MARCH, 2008 P.C.: By consent of parties, Civil Application is granted in terms of prayer clause (a). (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (A.A.SAYED, J.) - 3 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION L.P.A. NO.10 OF 2001 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4675 OF 2000 ... Smt.Lata Mohan ...Appellant v/s. Kum.Saroj J. Kamble & ors. ...Respondents ... Mr.Mihir Desai for the appellant. Mr.R.S.Apte i/b Mr.A.A.Garge for the Respondent No.1. Mr.Prabhu i/b Mr.N.V.Bandiwadekar for Respondent No.2. Mr.S.P.Kadam for Respondent No.3. ... CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & A.A.SAYED JJ. DATED: 12TH MARCH, 2008 - 4 - P.C.: 1. By this appeal the Appellant challenges the order passed by the learned single Judge of this court dated 16th December, 2000 passed in Writ Petition No.4675 of 2000. 2. The facts that are relevant for deciding this Appeal are that the Appellant Smt.Lata Mohan and the Respondent No.1 Kum.Saroj J. Kamble are admittedly working in aided primary school. Their conditions of service as also promotion to the post of Headmistress are admittedly governed by the provisions of the MEPS Act. The Respondent No.1 was promoted to the post of Headmistress on 8-6-1992. Feeling aggrieved by that promotion, the present Appellant filed Appeal No.48 of 1993 before the School Tribunal, Nasik claiming that she is senior to the Respondent No.1 and therefore, promotion of the Respondent No.1 to the post of Headmistress is not in accordance with law. That appeal was decided by the Tribunal by order dated 7-5-1994. It appears that while that Appeal was pending, the Respondent No.1 was reverted from - 5 - the post of headmistress by order dated 13-9-1993 and the present Appellant was promoted to the post of headmistress in her place. The present Appellant filed a petition before this court challenging the order passed by the School Tribunal in Appeal No.48 of 1993. That Petition was Writ Petition No.600 of 1996. This court disposed of that Writ Petition by order dated 1-11-1996. The court did not interfere with the order because by that time the Respondent No.1 was reverted and the Petitioner was working as a headmistress. The order reverting the Respondent No.1 was challenged before the School Tribunal by the Respondent No.1 by filing an appeal. That Appeal was Appeal No.18 of 1994. That Appeal was allowed by the School Tribunal by order dated 25-10-1994. Pursuant to the order of the School Tribunal, the management reverted the Appellant from the post of headmistress to the post of Asst.Teacher and promoted the Respondent No.1 to the post of headmistress as directed by the School Tribunal. This reversion order was challenged by the present Appellant before the School Tribunal in Appeal No.148 of 1997. That Appeal was allowed by the School Tribunal by order dated 27-9-1999. Writ Petition No.4675 of 2000 was filed by the Respondent No.1 challenging the order of - 6 - the School Tribunal. 3. The principal grievance of the Respondent No.1 against the order of the School Tribunal was that the reversion of the present Appellant from the post of Headmistress was a consequence of the order of the School Tribunal itself and therefore the order of reversion could not have been challenged by the present Appellant. It was also the contention of the Respondent No.1 that when the present Appellant had challenged the promotion of the Respondent No.1 to the post of headmistress initially, that challenge failed and the School Tribunal rejected the contention of the Appellant that she is entitled to the post of headmistress and not the Respondent No.1. So long as that order remains in force the present Appellant cannot take exception to the promotion of the Respondent No.1 to the post of headmistress. 4. The learned single Judge has decided the writ petition by order dated 16th December, 2000. The learned single Judge has held that the School Tribunal has committed an error in allowing the appeal filed by the present Appellant. The learned single Judge has set aside the order of the School - 7 - Tribunal and as a result of which the Respondent No.1 becomes entitled to continue in the post of Headmistress. It is this order which is challenged in the present appeal. 5. We have heard the learned Counsel for both sides. 6. The claim of the present Appellant to the post of headmistress is on the ground that she is senior in the cadre of Asst.Teacher to the Respondent No.1. It is on that very ground that she has challenged the promotion of the Respondent No.1 to the post of headmistress in Appeal No.48 of 1993. That appeal admittedly has been dismissed by the School Tribunal by order dated 7-5-1994. Though that order was challenged by the Appellant by filing Writ Petition in this court, it is common ground that that order has not been aside by any court. That petition was not entertained by the court, because of pendency of the proceedings and subsequent order of the reversion of the Respondent No.1. The consequence is that the order of the school tribunal passed in Appeal No.48 of 1993 holds the field between the parties and therefore, in our opinion, the learned single Judge was perfectly justified in holding that the present - 8 - Appellant is not entitled to challenge the promotion of the Respondent No.1 to the post of headmistress, so long as the order of the school tribunal in Appeal No.48 of 1993 holds the field. It was contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant that the school tribunal rejected the challenge to the promotion of the Respondent No.1 to the post of headmistress because the present Appellant was not able to prove that she is senior to the Respondent No.1. In the submission of the learned Counsel, therefore, an inquiry should be made to find out as to whether the Respondent No.1 is senior to the Petitioner in the cadre of Asst.teacher. In our opinion, such an inquiry cannot be made in these proceedings, so long as the order passed by the School Tribunal in Appeal No.48 of 1993 continues to operate. Promotion of the Respondent No.1 to the post of headmistress in 1993 was challenged by the present Appellant and therefore, all the challenges that were raised and the challenges that could have been made stood rejected by the decision of the school tribunal in Appeal No.48 of 1993. The decision of the school tribunal in Appeal No.48 of 1993 will operate and will not permit the present Appellant to claim that the Respondent No.1 is not - 9 - entitled to the post of headmistress because she is not senior to the present Appellant. 7. We find that the view taken by the learned single Judge is a possible view to be taken in the facts and circumstances of the case. We see no substance in the Appeal. Appeal therefore fails and is dismissed. No orders as to costs. 8. At the request of the learned Counsel for the Appellant, as the Appellant is presently working as Headmistress, it is directed that despite dismissal of the Appeal, interim order that is operating in this Appeal shall continue to operate for a period of eight weeks from today. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (A.A.SAYED, J.)