-1- FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGBAD. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- Office notes, office Memoranda of | coram, appearance, court’s orders | Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders | LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.165/09 Shri P.S.Dighe h/f Shri N.B.Suryawanshi,Adv for appellant. Shri D.R.Jaybhar,Adv.for R.4. .... CORAM : A.P.DESHPANDE & N.D.DESHPANDE,JJ. DATE : 5/3/2010. 1] This is a Letters Patent Appeal calling in question the legality of an order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the Petition. 2] The present petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe category and claims reservation in the promotional post of head of a school. The service conditions are regulated by the Maharashtra -2- Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation, Act, 1977 and Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules,1981. Rule 9 (10) of M.E.P.S. Rules,1981 regulates the subject of reservation in the promotional post of heads and assistant heads. The total reservation provided is 24%, out of which 13% is for Scheduled Caste, 7% for Scheduled Tribe and 4% for Denotified Tribes and Nomadic Tribes. Rule 9(10) (b) of M.E.P.S.(Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 provides a rider which reads thus : "................,so however, that the percentage for filling up such vacancies does not exceed the limit laid down for each of such category". 3] There are 4 posts of Head Master available in the establishment of respondent no.1. There is already a candidate from Scheduled Caste category promoted under Rule 9(10) of M.E.P.S.Rules 1981, who is holding the said post of head. In that view of the -3- matter, the Tribunal, so also learned Single Judge has held that no reservation can be provided for Scheduled Tribe category candidate, as the same is bound to exceed the percentage prescribed for reservation. Perused the order impugned. It does not call for any interference. 4] In the result, Letters Patent Appeal is summarily dismissed. (N.D.DESHPANDE (A.P.DESHPANDE) JUDGE JUDGE umg/lpa165-09