1 wp848-11.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.848 OF 2011 Shrikant B. Chougule .. Petitioner versus Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Kasba Nool, Tal.Gandhinglaj & Ors .. Respondents Mr.Datta H. Pawar for the petitioner. Mr.S.N.Bhosle, A.G.P for respondent No.3. Mr.M.S.Topkar for respondent No.4. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 28th JULY 2011. P.C.: . The petitioner was demoted from the post of Lab.Assistant to Peon. This demotion was challenged by him by filing an appeal to the School Tribunal, Kolhapur. By an order dated 20th January 2010, the Presiding Officer of that Tribunal, dismissed this appeal of the petitioner. 2 Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No.2650 of 2010. On 13th August 2010, the learned single 2 wp848-11.doc Judge of this Court dismissed this writ petition. 3 By relying upon the observations of the learned single Judge that the present petitioner has only challenged this demotion and the order in that behalf of the Management, so also the School Tribunal, but, has failed to impugn and challenge the order of Education Officer, that the instant writ petition is filed challenging the order of the Education Officer. The order of the Education Officer has been rendered on 6th February 2006. The petitioner has filed this petition on 23rd November 2010. Apart from the fact that the petitioner has approached this Court belatedly to challenge the said order, challenge to the order of the Education Officer does not improve his case. The petitioner is held to be a junior in the post of peon, than, that of the contesting respondent No.4. Therefore, he could not have been appointed as a Lab. Assistant. If the respondent No.4 was senior to him, he ought to have been appointed. Essentially, this position does not change even if the petitioner is permitted to challenge the order of the Education Officer. The Tribunal has considered all these aspects and has found that the demotion was proper. This Court in the earlier round of litigation did not interfere with that order. Now, in the garb of challenging the order of 3 wp848-11.doc Education Officer, the same issues are re-opened. If the petitioner accepts the position that he was a junior-most peon, then, that could not be interfered with in writ jurisdiction. For all these reasons, I find that there is no merit in this writ petition and it is dismissed. No costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)