1 1. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5706/2010 (Bengal Bhaskar Ramrao Vs. Vidyashakti Shikshan Sanstha, Karegaon, through its President and Ors.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.RJ Godbole, Adv. for petitioner; Mr.HV Patil, Adv. for Resp.Nos. 1 to 3 and 5; Mr.KS Patil, AGP for Respondent No.4. *** CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL ,J. DATE : 21 st October, 2010. ... 1) Heard learned Counsel for the parties extensively. 2) The status of the petitioner as a teacher appointed in the respondent/management effective from 1.10.1991, is not in question. The appointment of Respondent No.3 on 1.2.2000 with Respondent No.5 on 2.12.1991 is also not in controversy. 3) It is informed, the Respondent No.3 is In-charge Head Master since 2005 at Aadarsha Vidyalaya, Parbhani, where the petitioner is working. The controversy revolves to benediction of Headmastership to Respondent No.5 in Holkar Vidyalaya, Khadki, Dist. Hingoli though effective from 2001, however, 2 seniority list was circulated to the petitioner in 2007 and consequently the petitioner questions the seniority or the supersession to the competent authority of the learned Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal at Latur. 4) Learned Counsel for the management unfold several contentions to show conduct of the petitioner as to his interest in the society, which runs several other institutions. This court is not required to travel or traverse with all these details. A short point before this Court is, - Whether there was official communication of transfer of Seniority list of the members- employees of the respondent/management to the petitioner and the answer is in negative. The seniority list was never communicated, to the petitioner, which was mandatorily required to be so done by the management. The petitioner could not, in tune and in line with the legal proposition, move the respondents/management, making him available the seniority list. He having conveyed the list officially, was competent to move the learned Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal, challenging the appointment of Respondent No.5. The dismissal of the petition on the ground of delay by 3 the 5) learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal, in the above set of fact, was uncalled for and consequently, the said order of the tribunal is set aside. 6) This Court has not expressed any opinion on merits and entitlements of the petitioner to the post of Head Master in the Respondent No.1-management. It is for the learned Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal to independently dwell upon this controversy on its own merits. 7) The petition is allowed to the extent indicated above with no order as to costs. 8) All the points are kept open. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/