1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3017 OF 2008 Sane Guruji Shikshan Prasarak Mandal (Trust) & Ors. ...Petitioners. Vs. Shri Ramesh Shrinivas Vishwambhar & Ors. ...Respondents. .... Mr. Uday P. Warunjikar for the Petitioners. Mr. Anilkumar Patil for Respondent No.1. ..... CORAM : DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. November 20, 2008. P.C. The School Tribunal has set aside the promotion granted to the Fourth Petitioner as an Assistant Headmaster and held that the First Respondent herein was wrongfully denied promotion though he was the seniormost amongst the teachers. The First Respondent retired on 31st December 2006 and he has been granted consequential benefits. As between the Fourth Petitioner and the First Respondent, it cannot be disputed that the First Respondent was senior in service. The First Respondent was appointed in 1994, while 2 the Fourth Petitioner joined service in 1995. Since seniority is the relevant criterion for appointment to the post of Assistant Headmaster under Rule 5 read with Rule 3 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Rules, 1981, the First Respondent was entitled to promotion. The First Respondent was unlawfully deprived of promotion. The order of the Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity. The Tribunal has condoned what was conceived to be a delay of six and a half months in filing an appeal. An application for condonation of delay was filed and the Tribunal was of the view that sufficient cause has been shown. The period of limitation of thirty days under Section 9(2) is only in respect of a challenge to an order of dismissal, removal, termination or reduction in rank. The period of thirty days does not apply to a challenge to a supersession made while effecting a promotion. Consequently, there was in fact, no delay in filing the appeal. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submitted 3 that the Education Officer has approved the appointment of the Fourth Petitioner on 8th August 2005 and that consequently, the management should not be liable to bear the financial burden of paying the benefits which have been granted to the First Respondent. In so far as this aspect is concerned, it would be open to the management to submit pay bills for the reimbursement of the salary which is to be paid to the First Respondent, to the Department and any such application if made, shall be duly considered in accordance with law. In the circumstances, the Petition is lacking in substance and is accordingly dismissed. The payment of benefits shall be effected within a period of two months from today. ......