wp3569.11.odt 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETN. NO.3569/2011 Shikshak Sanstha, Gondia and another -vs- The Education Officer, (Sec.) and another ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri P.N.Shende, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Sonare, AGP for the respondent No.1. Shri Mohgaonkar, counsel for the respondent No.2. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : 19.09.2011. By this petition, the petitioners impugn the judgment passed by the School Tribunal on 12/07/2011 allowing an appeal filed by the respondent No.2 against his supersession and holding that the petitioner No.1 ought to have promoted the respondent No.2 on the post of headmaster in the School at Dongargaon. The petitioner No.1 society runs three schools. The petitioner No.1 had appointed all the three headmasters on the three schools run and administered by the petitioner No.1 society from the open category candidates. Since there is thirty three per cent reservation in view of the provisions of Rule 9 (10) (a) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools wp3569.11.odt 2/3 (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, one post of headmaster ought to have reserved for a reserved category candidate. The respondent No.2 belongs to the scheduled caste category. In this background, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the respondent No.2 and directed the petitioner No.1 to promote the respondent No.2 on the post of headmaster. The Tribunal set aside the promotion order issued in favour of the petitioner No.2 on 11/11/2009. There is nothing wrong with the order passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nagpur in allowing the appeal filed by the respondent No.2 and directing the petitioner No.1 to promote the respondent No.2 on the post of headmaster as thirty three per cent reservation was provided under Rule 9 (10) (a) of the Rules of 1981. In view of the provision for thirty three per cent reservation, obviously one post out of the three posts of the headmasters ought to have reserved for a reserved category candidate. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the judgment reported in 2006 (6) Supreme Court Cases 430 for submitting that even if thirty three per cent reservation rule is followed, there would still be one per cent remaining as thirty three per cent would be less than one third of hundred per cent and hence, one post could not have been reserved is totally misplaced and is liable to be rejected. In the reported decision there were six posts and the reservation was twenty one per cent and in the facts and circumstances of that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed wp3569.11.odt 3/3 that the reservation could not have exceeded the quota and, therefore, only one post ought to have reserved instead of two posts which were reserved in that case. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE KHUNTE