PVR 1 wp4087-10 IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4087 OF 2010 Mrs.Samita Santosh Mungekar. ...Petitioner vs. 1.The State of Maharashtra and others. ...Respondents --- Mr.N.V.Bandiwadekar, for Petitioner. Mr.S.N.Patil, AGP for Respondent nos.1,2 & 4. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & N.D.DESHPANDE,JJ. DATED: 23rd September, 2010 P.C.: 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. The facts which are material and relevant for deciding this petition PVR 2 wp4087-10 are that the Petitioner was working as Assistant Teacher in one of the two private recognized schools run by Respondent no.3. There was a vacancy in the post of Head Master, therefore, she was promoted to that post by order dated 20.2.2009. It being an aided school, the Education officer approved her appointment as Head Mistress by order dated 25.5.2009. However, by order dated 26.4.2010, the approval granted to the appointment of the petitioner as Head Mistress was cancelled. The reason given was that the appointment is contrary to the provisions of the M.E.P.S.Act and Rules providing reservation in the post of Head Master for the persons belonging to backward classes. The case of the Petitioner was that there are only two posts of Head Master under the Respondent no.3 Management and as the reservation provided is 33%, none of the two posts can be reserved for any candidate belonging to backward classes. The Education officer has filed reply. In the rely, reliance is placed on a Government Resolution PVR 3 wp4087-10 issued by the General Administrative Department of the Government of Maharashtra dated 5.11.2009. There is controversy before us  whether this Government Resolution will apply in relation to the promotion to the post of Head Master of a recognized private school , because those promotions are governed by the Rules framed under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act. However, in our opinion, this Government Resolution will not apply in the instant case in any case because the promotion order is dated 20.2.2009 i.e. much before the Government Resolution dated 5.11.2009 is issued. The order canceling the approval has also been made without giving the Petitioner an opportunity of being heard, therefore, for that reason also it is infirm and hence, liable to be set aside. 2. In this view of the matter, therefore, it is obvious that order dated 26.4.2009 is illegal and has to be set aside. In the result, the PVR 4 wp4087-10 petition succeeds and is allowed. Order dated 26.4.2009 impugned in the petition is set aside. With the result, now Order dated 25.5.2009 granting approval to the appointment of the Petitioner as Head Mistress will remain. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J.) (N.D.DESHPANDE,J.) ...