IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1323 OF 2009 Ramesh Shamrao Pokharnikar ...Petitioner Vs. Anita Vinod Salunkhe & Ors. ... Respondents --- Ramesh S. Pokharnikar present in person Shri Nitin P. Deshpande for Respondent No.1 Smt. Neeta V. Masurkar for Respondent No.2 for Respondents ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED 25TH JUNE, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard the Petitioner, who is appearing in person, the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 and the Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2-Management. 2. The Petitioner is challenging the judgment and order passed by the School Tribunal dated 16.10.2008, whereby, the appeal filed by the Respondent No.1 was partly allowed and the order of appointment of the Petitioner herein as Head of the School dated 1.7.2008 was set aside and quashed and a direction was given to the Management to prepare a fresh seniority list after following the procedure laid down in the rules and, thereafter, to pass an order of promotion in accordance with law within 30 days thereafter. The Respondent Nos.2 Management has filed the reply and it is pointed out that pursuant to the direction given by the School Tribunal in its order dated 16.8.2008, a fresh seniority list has been prepared after following the procedure laid down under the Act and the fresh promotion order has been issued in which the Respondent No.1 has been promoted as head of the school in one of the schools. 3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1, therefore, submits that in effect, this writ petition has become infructuous and the Petitioner, therefore will have to challenge a fresh order of promotion which has been issued by the managing in favour of the Respondent No.1. 4. Brief facts in nutshell are as under. 5. The Petitioner herein initially filed an appeal in the School Tribunal challenging the promotion of one Mrs.A.A. Patole as head of the school. The said appeal was partly allowed. The order of promotion of Mrs. Patole was set aside and quashed. The School Tribunal, however, directed Mrs. Patole to hand over the charge to the senior most teacher. No direction was given that the Petitioner herein should be promoted to the post of Head Master. In view of the said order, at the relevant time, the Respondent No.1 was shown to the senior most teacher and, therefore, Mrs. Patole handed over the charge of the post of head master to the Respondent No.1 herein. 6. Thereafter, the Respondent No.2- Management issued an order of promotion in favour of the Petitioner herein dated 1.7.2008. This order was challenged by the Respondent No.1 by filing an appeal under section 9 of the M.E.P.S. Act. In the appeal, it was alleged that as a result of the said order of promotion dated 1.7.2008, the Respondent No.1 was reduced in rank. Secondly, it was alleged that though she was senior most teacher, she was superseded and, therefore, the order of appointment dated 1.7.2008 was illegal. 7. The Tribunal after perusing the evidence on record held that the claim of the Respondent No.1 that she was reduced in rank could not be entertained since she was acting as a in-charge head mistress and, therefore, she did not have any right over the said post. However, the Tribunal held that before promoting the Petitioner herein, the management had not followed the procedure laid down under sections 3,4,5 of the said Act. The Tribunal has noted that the seniority list was not circulated and various other discrepancies were also noted by the Tribunal. 8. I have perused the impugned order. In my view, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal and the Tribunal had merely directed the Management to prepare a fresh seniority list and, thereafter, pass an order of promotion. There is no reason, therefore, to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 9. However, since now the management has prepared a fresh seniority list and has issued an order of promotion in favour of the Respondent No.1, the Petitioner would be entitled to challenge the seniority list and promotion independently and on merits. Since this petition was pending in this Court, the Petitioner had no occasion to challenge the fresh order of promotion and the fresh seniority list which is prepared by the management. He would, therefore, be entitled to file a regular appeal against the said order. 10. In the result, the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal is confirmed. There is no reason to interfere with the impugned order by exercising the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Liberty is granted to the Petitioner to challenge the fresh order of promotion dated 29th January, 2009 and the fresh seniority list prepared by the management by filing an appeal under section 9 of the M.E.P.S. Act. If such an appeal is filed within four weeks from today, the said appeal shall be heard and shall be decided by the Tribunal on merits and in accordance with law. Submission of the Petitioner on the question of reservation is kept open and if the said question is raised by him in the appeal which also be dealt with in accordance with law. To that extent, the finding of the School Tribunal in the impugned order is set aside. V.M. KANADE J.