: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7712 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION NO.7712 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION NO.7712 OF 2005 Mrs.Nilima Ashok Deshmukh .. Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. WITH WITH WITH WRIT PETITION NO.7406 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION NO.7406 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION NO.7406 OF 2005 Mrs.Nilima Ashok Deshmukh .. Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.N.V.Bandiwadekar for the petitioner. Mr.C.R.Sonawane, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.K.V.Saste for respondent No.3. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & R.Y. GANOO, JJ. R.Y. GANOO, JJ. R.Y. GANOO, JJ. DATE : 26th June, 2008. DATE : 26th June, 2008. DATE : 26th June, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: : 2 : 1. In these two petitions, orders passed by the Education Officer in relation to the post of Headmaster and Assistant Headmaster in a recognised private school run by respondent No.3 institution is challenged. Therefore, these two petitions can be conveniently disposed off by a common order. 2. Admitted position is that there are three recognised private schools run by respondent No.3 institution. A full bench of this Court by its judgement delivered in the case of New English High School New English High School New English High School Association, Nagpur & Anr. v/s. Baldev s/o. Fakira Ade Association, Nagpur & Anr. v/s. Baldev s/o. Fakira Ade Association, Nagpur & Anr. v/s. Baldev s/o. Fakira Ade & Anr. 2006(6) Mh.L.J. 882 & Anr. 2006(6) Mh.L.J. 882 & Anr. 2006(6) Mh.L.J. 882 has laid it down as the law that unless there are more than three posts of Headmaster in different schools run by the same Management, not a single post of the Headmaster can be reserved for any backward class. In view of this law laid down by this Court, none of the posts of Headmaster in any of the three schools run by respondent No.3 institution could have been reserved for any backward class. 3. A vacancy in the post of Headmaster arose in one of the schools. One teacher by name Mr.Mehta, who was then working as an Assistant Headmaster was promoted to that post w.e.f. 1.5.2005. The Education Officer did not : 3 : approve his appointment and directed the Management to promote one Mr.Bansode, who was Assistant teacher belonging to backward class to the post of Headmaster. Therefore, Mr.Mehta filed Writ Petition No.5290 of 2005 in this Court challenging the communication. This Court admitted that petition for final hearing by an order dated 18.8.2005 and granted interim relief in favour of Mr.Mehta. As a result of which he continued in the post of Headmaster. From the same date on which Mr.Mehta was promoted to the post of Headmaster, namely, 1.5.2005, the present petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Headmaster which was vacated by Mr.Mehta. The Education Officer declined to approve the appointment of the petitioner as an Assistant Headmaster on a strange reason that the Writ Petition filed by Mr.Mehta is pending in this Court. The petitioner, therefore, filed Writ Petition No.7712 of 2005 in this Court. Mr.Mehta, who was promoted as Headmaster retired from the service w.e.f. 13.9.2005. In the vacancy caused due to his retirement, the petitioner was promoted by the Management as Head Mistress by an order dated 7.10.2005. The Education Officer again did not approve the appointment of the petitioner as Head Mistress but only permitted her to sign the pay bills and put a condition that Mr.Bansode should be promoted as Headmaster. : 4 : 4. Writ Petition No.7406 of 2005 has been filed by the petitioner challenging that action of the Education Officer. 5. We have heard learned Counsel appearing for the Education Officer. We have also gone through the affidavit filed by the Education Officer. The basic premise for making the orders which are challenged in these two petitions is that the post of Headmaster should have been reserved by the Management for backward class. In view of the judgement of the full bench of this Court, referred to above in the case of New English High School New English High School New English High School Association, Nagpur (supra), Association, Nagpur (supra), Association, Nagpur (supra), that basic premise is wrong. The Education Officer in his affidavit has also admitted that there are only three schools run by the respondent No.3 institution. Therefore, none of the posts of the Headmaster would have been reserved. If that is so, the Education Officer had no jurisdiction to decline to approve the appointment of the petitioner as an Assistant Headmaster right w.e.f. 1.5.2005 and as Head Master w.e.f. 1.10.2005. 6. Both these petitions, therefore, succeeds and are allowed. The Education Officer is directed to approve the : 5 : appointment of the petitioner as an Assistant Head Mistress from 1.5.2005 till 30.9.2005 and as Head Mistress from 1.5.2005 till the date of her superannuation. 7. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. 8. The Education Officer is directed to issue necessary orders within a period of 8 weeks from today. (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.)