1 mmj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN ITS CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1649 OF 2009 Mrs. Nalini Dinkar Salve ..Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents Shri N.V.Bandiwadekar for the Petitioner Smt. S.S.Bhende AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 Shri U.P.Warunjikar for Respondent No.8 Shri Nitin Kulkarni for Respondent Nos.7 & 6 None for Respondent No.8 Coram: P.B.MAJMUDAR AND R.M. SAVANT, JJ. 22nd June, 2010 P.C. 1. Rule. Rule with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Notice of the hearing as to the admission, has been served on the Respondent No.5. Since the Petition is being heard finally and in 2 view of the nature of the order to be passed, notice of final disposal is not necessary. 2. The bone of contention in the above Petition is the post of Principal in the Respondent No.7 D.Ed. College. It is the case of the Petitioner that she is senior to the Respondent No.8, who has been appointed and who is presently holding the post of the Principal of Respondent No.7 college. Though the issue as regards the seniority between the Petitioner and Respondent No.8 was before the School Tribunal and has been adjudicated upon by the School Tribunal by its Judgment and Order dated 17-12-2007. In view of the law laid down by this Court by a Division bench of this Court by Judgment and Order dated 3-8-2004 in Writ Petition NO.3277 of 1997, the efficacy of the order passed by the School Tribunal stand denuded. It is only the Respondent No.5, who has the authority to decide the said issue in terms of the National Council for 3 Teachers Education Act, 1993 which has come into force on 25-12-1995. The Petitioner had thereafter approached this Court by way of the said Writ Petition No.1844 of 2008. By Order dated 27-3-2008 passed in the said Writ Petition, the Petitioner was directed to approach the Respondent No.5. Accordingly, the Petitioner has approached the Respondent No.5 by making a representation which was forwarded to the Respondent No.5 by a covering letter dated 24-6-2008. It is the case of the Petitioner that the said representation is still awaiting disposal at the hands of the Respondent No.5. Hence, without going into the merits of the matter, we direct the Respondent No.5 to dispose of the said representation of the Petitioner within a period of three months from date of the receipt of the order. If the Respondent No.5 so deems it fit, an opportunity of personal hearing may be granted to the concerned parties. 4 3. Rule is accordingly made absolute to the aforesaid extent with parties to bear their respective costs. 4. The parties to act on an ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by Shirestedar of this Court. (R.M.SAVANT, J.) (P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)