1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.40 OF 2002 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4723 OF 1992 Mrs.Giribala Sangam Sagre .. Petitioner. Vs. Mrs.Sharadha Hemant Joshi & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.Nitin Jamdar for the petitioner. Mr.P.R.Arjunwadkar for respondent no.1. Mr.R.M.Patane AGP for respondent nos.3 and 5. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE & U.D.SALVI, JJ. DATED : APRIL 26, 2011. P.C. 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 16.11.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.4723 of 1992. By this order, the writ petition had been allowed making the rule absolute in terms of prayer clause(b)(i). The writ petition was directed against the judgment and order dated 16.8.1992 passed by the School Tribunal in Appeal No.123 of 1991. By that order, the School Tribunal had set aside the order dated 31.5.1991 and had directed the respondent-management to reinstate the appellant as Headmistress of the school. 2. The appeal was filed under section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private School Regulation Act, 1977 (for short “the said Act”) by respondent no.1 – Sharadha Hemant Joshi challenging the S 2 order dated 31.5.1991 by which she was directed to handover the charge of the post of Headmaster. This according to the appellant was reduction in rank and, therefore, she filed the appeal. 3. The learned Single Judge after having considered the relevant dates has observed that the appellant was never promoted to the post of Headmaster and, therefore, she never held the post of Headmaster. In other words, it was held that the appellant continued to be Assistant Teacher and, therefore, the order dated 31.5.1991 did not result in effecting reduction in rank of respondent no.2 and thus the appeal filed under section 9 of the said Act was not tenable. Admittedly, the appellant was appointed as the Headmistress on 27.2.1989. Earlier headmaster – Chopdar, who was under suspension, was ultimately dismissed from the services on 12.4.1989 i.e. after the appellant’s appointment as Headmistress. Therefore, it is clear that the appellant was appointed on the post of Headmistress when the said post was not vacant. In other words, it was not possible for the management to promote her as the Headmistress as there was no vacancy of the Headmaster on that date. We do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge deserving interference by this court in the letters patent appeal. Hence the letters patent appeal is dismissed. (U.D.SALVI,J.) (D.B.BHOSALE,J.)