1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.5812 OF 2010. (AHEMAD ALI HAIDAR ALI SAYYAD...VS..P.O. SCHOOL TRBUNAL & OTH.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mrs.R.S. Sirpurkar, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. V.A.Thakare, A.G.P. for Respondents No. 1 & 5. Mr. P.N. Shende, Advocate for Respondent No.2. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : MARCH 07, 2011. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By this petition the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Chandrapur on 22.10.2010 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for framing three preliminary issues, which are directed to be framed by this Court in pursuance of the decision in the case of Anna Pethe, reported in 1997(3) Mh.L.J. 697. The petitioner is the original respondent No.4 to an appeal filed by respondent No.2 to this petition. Respondent No.2 to this petition has, by an appeal filed under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act challenged the promotion of the petitioner on the post of Senior Clerk. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner filed an application praying that the three preliminary issues, as required to be framed by the direction issued in Anna Pethe's case, be framed before the appeal was decided on merits. The Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Chandrapur, however, by the impugned order dated 22.10.2010 rejected the application filed by the petitioner. 2 It is necessary to note that in this case, the respondent No.2 was challenging promotion of the petitioner on the post of Senior Clerk. It is further necessary to note that the respondent management had not pleaded in the written statement that the appointment of the respondent No.2 on the post of Junior Clerk was not legal and valid and in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act. The petitioner had, however, raised an objection that the appointment of respondent No.2 on the post of Junior Clerk was not legal as proper procedure was not followed by the management before appointing respondent No.2 on the post of Junior Clerk. Since this plea was raised by the petitioner, the petitioner filed an application for framing these preliminary issues. The Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Chandrapur rightly held that normally three preliminary issues are required to be framed only in case of termination of service where the management challenges the legality and correctness of the very appointment of the appellant by filing an appeal under Section 9 of the M.E.P.S. Act. Since this was a case of supersession, the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Chandrapur rightly held that it was not necessary to frame the preliminary issues in this case, specially when it was not the case of the management that the appointment of respondent No.2 on the post of Junior Clerk was not valid and legal. Moreover, the impugned order dated 22.10.2010 could not have caused any serious prejudice to the petitioner as the School Tribunal observed that if at all it was necessary to decide the question of legality of the appointment of respondent No.2 on the post of Junior Clerk, it could be decided at the time of finally deciding the case. Hence, the 3 Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Chandrapur has kept the issue about legality of the appointment of respondent No.2 on the post of Junior Clerk, open. The order passed by the Presiding officer, School Tribunal, Chandrapur does not suffer from any jurisdictional error so as to interfere with the same in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RR..