1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.94 OF 2009 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.94 OF 2009 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.94 OF 2009 . IN IN IN WRIT PETITION NO.7381 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.7381 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.7381 OF 2008 Ansari Ejaj Ahmed Mohd.Farooque .. Appellant vs. Anjuman Taraqqi-e-Taleem & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.N.R.Bubna for the appellant Mr.Sandeep R. Waghmare for respondent nos.1 Mr.S.K.Chinchalikar, A.G.P. for respondent nos.3 to 5 Mr.A.K.Patil for respondent nos.6 CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & R.G. KETKAR, JJ. R.G. KETKAR, JJ. R.G. KETKAR, JJ. DATE: 26TH MARCH, 2009 DATE: 26TH MARCH, 2009 DATE: 26TH MARCH, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard. 2. This L.P.A. is filed by the petitioner impugning the order dated 14.1.09 passed by the learned single Judge of this court wherein the learned single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition by observing that 2 in view of the facts of the case the petition has been filed on the ground that respondent nos.6 has been appointed as a Headmaster even though he is junior to the petitioner. He has an alternate remedy u.s.9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and therefore, the court refused to exercise Jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. We do not find that the impugned order suffers from any error or illegality. Section 9(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 clearly provides that any employee in a private school who is superseded by the Management while making an appointment to any post by promotion and who is aggrieved, shall have a right of appeal and may appeal against any such order or supersession to the Tribunal constituted under section 8. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant tried to canvas before us that this is a case where the appellant is challenging the order passed by the Deputy Director and not by the respondent management. 3 Further, though this is an institution which is run by the minority community and has placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court on the issue raised by him before this court, we find that the decisions of the Supreme Court cited before us particularly in the case of S.Azeez Basha vs. Union of India reported in S.Azeez Basha vs. Union of India reported in S.Azeez Basha vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1968 Supreme Court 662 and St.Stephen’s College vs. AIR 1968 Supreme Court 662 and St.Stephen’s College vs. AIR 1968 Supreme Court 662 and St.Stephen’s College vs. University of Delhi reported in (1992) 1 Supreme Court University of Delhi reported in (1992) 1 Supreme Court University of Delhi reported in (1992) 1 Supreme Court Cases 558 Cases 558 Cases 558 does not come to the rescue of the petitioner in enabling him to approach the learned single Judge by invoking its extraordinary Jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Further, the order appointing respondent nos.6 as Head Master which can be only passed by the Management and not by the Deputy Director as the Deputy Director is not vested with any power to redress such grievance in exercise of its statutory power under section 3 of the Act. Therefore, appeal is dismissed. In view thereof, Civil Application No.105 of 2009 does not survive. The same is also dismissed as infructuous. (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (R.G. Ketkar, J.) (R.G. Ketkar, J.) (R.G. Ketkar, J.) 4