:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1560 OF 1993 Shri Sant Goroba Shikshan Sanstha ..Petitioner Vs. 1. Shri Anantrao Khandoji Auty and ors. ..Respondents Mr. M.R. Deshpande for petitioner. Mr. Nilesh M. Bhole i/by Mrs. Aarti P. Bhide for respondent no.1. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. Date : January 11, 2008. Date : January 11, 2008. Date : January 11, 2008. ORAL JUDGMENT: ORAL JUDGMENT: ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. This petition filed by the Education Society running Anand Vidya Niketan at Pune impugns the Judgment and Order rendered by the School Tribunal for Pune Region at Pune on 30/11/1992 thereby allowing Appeal No. 67 of 1992. The said appeal was filed by the respondent no.1 - Assistant Teacher who is the seniormost amongst all the teachers. The School Tribunal had directed to appoint the appellant in :2: place of respondent no..3 Mrs. Kiran Baburao Taware. 2. There is no dispute that the petitioner-society has been registered as a Trust under the Bombay Public Trust Act and as per its constitution Shri Baburao B. Taware would remain Secretary for his life time. Said Mr. Taware was the Headmaster and he retired on 30/4/1991. The post of Headmaster was not filled in immediately thereafter and the appellant was continued as In-charge Headmaster till 1/5/1992, on which date the present respondent no.3, the wife of Mr.Baburao Taware, the Secretary, came to be appointment as the Headmistress. The respondent no.1, therefore, filed an appeal under Section 9 of the M.E.P.S. Act, 1977 and challenged the supersession as he was the seniormost teacher in the school, which has not been disputed. Two grounds were raised while opposing the appeal before the School Tribunal i.e. (1) the respondent no.1 himself had given in writing on 19/12/1991 that he was not interested and not willing to work as Headmaster and (2) even otherwise the record of the appellant during last five years was not satisfactory. However, after :3: hearing both the parties and considering the documents placed on record, the School Tribunal rejected the contentions that the service record of the appellant was not satisfactory and also declined to believe that the appellant had voluntarily given up his claim to the post of Headmaster. 3. The School Tribunal noted that Mr.Baburao Taware was the founder of the Trust and from the very beginning he was holding the post of Headmaster of the respondent no.2-school and on his retirement on 30/4/1991, he continued to discharge the responsibility as the Secretary. He did not take any step to fill in the post of Headmaster. On the other hand, Mrs. Taware came to be appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 18/11/1991 i.e. after Mr. Taware retired as the Headmaster and she came to be appointed as the Headmistress in a year i.e. six months from her joining, thereby superseding as many as 10 teachers. It was submitted by Mr.Deshpande the learned counsel for the petitioner that out of the said 10 teachers three have already left and one has retired. However, the fact remains that Mrs.Taware :4: was not the seniormost teacher when she was appointed as the Headmistress. 4. Appointment to the post of Head of the School is required to be made by following Rule 3 of the M.E.P.S. Rules 1981. As per Rule 3(1) the prescribed requirement of experience is of five years of teaching in the secondary school and that too as a full time teacher, after graduation. As per Rule 3(3) the management of a school including a night school shall fill up the post of the Head by appointing the seniormost member of the teaching staff who fulfils the conditions laid down in sub-rule (1) and who has a satisfactory record of service. Explanation below Rule 3 (3) states that the management shall communicate any occurrence of vacancy of the Head to the seniormost qualified teacher having satisfactory record of service and ask him to submit his willingness for appointment to the post within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of the communication. The claim of the seniormost qualified teacher having satisfactory record of service, for appointment to the post of Head, may be disregarded :5: only if he, of his own free will, gives a statement in writing to the Education Officer that he has voluntarily relinquished his claim to the post. This shall not debar him from being considered for subsequent vacancies as and when they occur. Such a teacher shall record his statement in his own handwriting before the Education Officer within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of the communication as aforesaid and the Education Officer shall endorse it as having been recorded in his presence. 5. In the instant case, appellant averred in his appeal memo that Mr.Taware called him in his house on 19/11/1991 and forced him to write a letter indicating his unwillingness to work as Headmaster. Even otherwise nothing was brought on record before the School Tribunal that such a writing was made in the presence of the Education Officer and the Education Officer had endorsed it as having been recorded in his presence voluntarily by the seniormost teacher. Thus the School Tribunal was right in rejecting the first objection raised by the respondent against the :6: appellant. 6. Dealing with the second challenge to the appeal on the ground of service record, the Tribunal noted the averment made by the appellant and concluded that all the CRs were written by Mr. Taware and all the twelve teachers were on one side and Mr. Taware was on the other side. The service record of these twelve teachers was sought to be malign by issuing memos by Mr.Taware in his capacity as the Headmaster. The ACRs were placed before the School Tribunal and copies of the same are also annexed alongwith the affidavit filed by Mr.Taware. It is obvious that Mr. Taware was running the school as Chief Executive Officer and the ACRs were never placed before the Managing Committee. As per Rule 15(2) of the M.E.P.S. Rules, 1981, the confidential report of the Head or a teacher written by the President shall be reviewed by the Managing Committee and as per Rule 15(4) representation, if any, from any employee against the adverse remark communicated to him in accordance with sub-rule (3) above shall be decided by the School Committee. Similar, if any representation is made by :7: the Head shall be decided by the Managing Committee. The School Tribunal, therefore, held that no value could be attached to the report written by Mr.Taware and more so when he had a personal and vested interest. The School Tribunal noted that the Education Officer had conducted an enquiry on the complaints filed by the teachers and held that the Headmaster had purposely spoiled the confidential report of the Assistant Teachers Exh.‘16’ (18). The appellant and other seven Assistant Teachers have filed affidavit at Exhs. 32 to 40 and, therefore, the Education Officer had conducted an enquiry. I am, therefore, satisfied that the reasoning set out by the School Tribunal while allowing the appeal filed by the respondent no.1 cannot be termed as perverse or erroneous on the face of the record and, therefore, the impugned judgment and order does not call for any interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. 7. In the premises, this petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. The respondent no.1 shall be treated as the Headmaster of the School from 1/5/1992 as directed by the School Tribunal and he :8: shall be entitled for all consequential benefits. No costs. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)