WP/1505/2010 １ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1505 OF 2010 Dattkumar Shivram Bansode ... Petitioner V/s. Narayan Balappa (Ardhkapale) Mali and Ors. ... Respondents Mr. S. Langote with Mr. R.V. Bansode for the Petitioner. Mr. N.V. Bandiwadekar for Respondent No.1. Mr. M.S. Topkar for Respondent No.2. Mr. P.I. Khemani, AGP, for Respondent Nos.6 and 7. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE : 17 TH SEPTEMBER, 2010. P.C. : 1. The Writ Petition has been filed against the order dated 8th February, 2010, passed by the School Tribunal, Kolhapur in Appeal No.16 of 2008, by which the Appeal filed by the respondent No.1 has been allowed. The School Tribunal has declared that the petitioner was illegally promoted as a “Head Master” of the School by superseding claim of respondent No.1. The order of 20th September, 2006 promoting the petitioner as “Head Master” of the School was quashed and set aside. 2. The main contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner is that the reservation policy has now been amended and, in fact, was changed during the pendency of the Appeal. According to the learned Advocate, the new reservation policy should have been considered by the School Tribunal while passing the impugned order. He submits that WP/1505/2010 ２ while the old policy indicated that there would be a reservation of 24%, in new policy terms there is a reservation of 33%. According to the learned Advocate, since there are three Schools, one post has to be reserved for the post of “Head Master”. 3. In my opinion, the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner cannot be accepted for more than one reason. The reservation policy, as it existed when the petitioner was appointed by the order of 20th September, 2006, permitted reservation to the extent of 24% and not 33%. Therefore, in view of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of New English High School Association, Nagpur & Anr. vs. Baldev Fakira Ade & Anr., reported in 2006 (6) Mh.L.J. 882, when there are four Schools, the appointment of one post of “Head Master” can be made from the reserved category. However, if there are less than four posts i.e. if there are three schools or less than that, then the question of reserving any post of “Head Master” does not arise. Therefore, the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner is unsustainable. 4. The learned Advocate for the petitioner then submits that since another Writ Petition which has been filed by the employee against the respondent is pending decision in this Court and the subject matter of these two Petitions being the same, the present Petition also be admitted. This submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner is again without merit. 5. Writ Petition No.5666 of 2006 was filed by a person against whom the School Tribunal has passed an order. The WP/1505/2010 ３ School Tribunal had held that the petitioner herein, who was the first respondent in the aforesaid Writ Petition, was entitled to be promoted as a “Head Master”. While admitting the Petition, the learned Single Judge has observed that prima facie from the seniority list annexed to the Petition, it could not held that the first respondent was entitled to the promotion with retrospective effect. That promotion was in respect of a seniority list of 1988. Therefore, the subject matter is not the same as the present Petition in which the seniority list in question is of the year 2005. 6. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has further urged that a person belonging to the backward class, who has been occupying the post of “Head Master” for years together, should not be disturbed at this stage when the policy of State Government has been changed during the pendency of the proceedings before the School Tribunal. This submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner also cannot be accepted. Merely because the petitioner was occupying the post of “Head Master” for years together, it would not give him a right to occupy that post unless he was occupying the same in accordance with the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981. The policy of the State Government may have changed in the year 2008, however this would not by itself lend credence to the appointment of the petitioner in that post for a number of years. 7. The Writ Petition is rejected. 8. All interim orders are vacated.