1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.5099 OF 2010 (MAHENDRA PREMDAS MANWATKAR....VS.. G.B.CAMPS SCHOOLS, CAD CAMP & OTH.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. P.N. Shende, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. M.R. Joharpurkar, Advocate for Respondents No.1, 2 and 4. Mr. V.A. Thakare, A.G.P. for Respondent No.3. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 20, 2011. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 1. By this petition the petitioner impugns the judgment passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nagpur on 10th February, 2010 dismissing an appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the promotion of respondent No.4 on the post of Headmaster. 2. It was the case of the petitioner before the Tribunal that the post was reserved for reserved category candidate and the petitioner was Scheduled Caste candidate. It was the case of the petitioner that the management had committed illegality in promoting respondent No.4 on the post of Headmaster by an order dated 14.05.1998. According to the petitioner, had the roster being observed by the management the petitioner would have been promoted as Headmaster in the school. 2 3. Respondent No.4 filed the written statement / reply and denied the case of the petitioner that the post was reserved and the roster ought to have been followed. It was the case of the respondents that the post of Headmaster is a solitary post and therefore, there was no question of reserving the said post for backward classes candidate. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the material on record, held that since the post of Headmaster was an isolated post the petitioner could not have been promoted on the same on the ground that he was scheduled caste candidate. The Tribunal held that respondent No.4 was surely senior to the petitioner and since there was no question of applying reservation policy to the isolated post of Headmaster, it could not be said that the case of the petitioner was a case of illegal supersession. In view of the aforesaid position the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The findings recorded by the Tribunal are based on proper appreciation of the facts and the law on the issue involved. The respondent No.4 was surely senior to the petitioner and was rightly appointed on the solitary post of the Headmaster. The impugned judgment dated 20.02.2010 does not call for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Hence, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RR..