1 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.1522 OF 1994. Shivaji Satwa Mane, Age 47 years, Occ.Service, Assistant Teacher, Narendra Arya Vidhyalayta, Aapsinga, Taluka Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. Narendra Arya Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Aapsinga, Tq.Tuljapur, Dist.Osmanabad, through its Secretary, Krishnathrao Jagtap. 3. Ramdas Balbhim Bidkar, Age major, Occ.Head Master, Narendra Arya Vidhyalaya, Aapsinga, Tq. Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad. 4. The Education Officer(S), Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad, 5. The Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad. 6. Ramesh Pundlik Chavhan, Age major, Occ.Service, Supervisor, Narendra Arya Vidhyalaya, Aapsingha, Tq. Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad. ... Respondents. 2 Mr.S.S.Pawar, advocate holding for Mr.G.N.Patil, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.N.B.Patil, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for the State. Mr.S.K.Shelke, advocate for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3. ... CORAM : B.R.GAVAI AND : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,JJ. Date : 10.06.2010. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R.Gavai,J.) 1. By the present petition, the petitioner has approached this Court for direction to comply with the order dated 16.11.1993, issued by the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad. 2. The petitioner claims to have been appointed as a trained teacher with the Respondent No.2 School with effect from March 1969. According to the petitioner, in the year 1991, one P.K.Kadam, retired from the services of the Respondent No.2 School and the petitioner was senior most employee was, therefore, entitled to be promoted as Supervisor. However, instead of promoting the petitioner as Supervisor, the 3 Respondent No.2 promoted the Respondent No.6 who was junior in service as Supervisor. The petitioner, therefore, addressed various communication to the Education Officer. The Education Officer vide order dated 16.11.1993 directed the Respondent No.2 to immediately promote the petitioner as Supervisor. 3. Shri Shelke, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.2 submits that petitioner is not entitled to any relief inasmuch as the petition is filed challenging the promotion of Respondent No.6 which was given to him in 1983. He, therefore, submits that the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. 4. Perusal of Sub-Rule 5 of Rule 5 would reveal that the post of Supervisor is required to be filled in on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. From the perusal of the communication of the Education Officer it is clear that the petitioner is senior in service than Respondent No.6. 4 5. Apart from that it is clear from the record that the Education Officer himself has directed Respondent No.2 to give promotion to the petitioner with immediate effect. The Respondent No.2 is a grant-in-aid School and bound to comply with the directions issued by the Education Officer. We find that when the Education Officer has issued the direction to the Respondent No.2, it was bound to follow the same. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to allow the petition. We hold that the petitioner was entitled to be promoted as Supervisor with effect from 3l.12.1991 i.e. the date on which the teacher was senior to the petitioner, namely, Mr.Kadam has retired. 6. By passage of time, the petitioner has retired from service, we therefore, direct that all arrears payable to the petitioner on account of his promotion to the post of Supervisor with effect from 3l.12.1991 would be paid to the petitioner by the Respondent No.2 within a period of three (3) months from today. 5 7. Rule is made absolute in above terms with costs payable by the Respondent No.2 to the petitioner which are quantified at Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand). (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) (B.R.GAVAI,J.) asp/office/wp152294