1 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO.140 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4863 OF 2009 Shri.Prakash Govind Dighe ..Petitioner Vs. Yogeshwar Education Society, Dhulgaon and Ors. ..Respondents .... Mr.S.P.Thorat Advocate for Petitioner .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. DATE : 28th JANUARY, 2010 IN CHAMBER AT 2.40 P.M. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner. 2 This Review Petition is directed against the order of this Court dated 9th September, 2009. The main contention in this petition is that the mandatory procedure under Sections 4, 7 and Rule 40 of the Maharashtra Employees Private Schools (Conditions of Services) Regulation Act, 1977 is not followed by the authorities and this aspect 2 has not been considered. It is further contended that the petitioner was compelled to tender resignation for the post of Head Master in order to reduce in rank or to demote to the post of Assistant Teacher from the post of Head Master. Both these aspects have already been considered by the Court and it is seen that even on earlier occasion the petitioner had voluntarily relinquished his right to claim the post of Head Master. On two earlier occasions, the petitioner of his own free will had in writing voluntarily applied for demotion. If at all the Management wanted to remove the petitioner from the post of Head Master, the Respondent Institution would have allowed the earlier applications of the petitioner for demotion. However, no action was taken thereon. This Court after considering all the aspects was of the considered opinion that the letter dated 7th August, 2007 given by the petitioner was by his own free will and it was not obtained from the petitioner by the Management under threats, hence, there is no substance in this contention. 3 The second ground was that though the Education Officer was made party, he has not filed any written statement before the trial Court nor any affidavit in reply before this Court. This ground has been taken especially in view of the fact this Court observed that “it is seen that the letter of acceptance for demotion dated 7.8.2007 has been 3 addressed to the Education Officer and there is an endorsement of the Education Officer thereon stating that `signed before me ’. This clearly shows that the petitioner was present before the Education Officer, when he executed letter of acceptance for demotion dated 7.8.2007. ” It is seen that on two earlier occasions including 12.9.2005, the petitioner of his own free will, had in writing voluntarily applied for demotion. As far as the Education Officer is concerned, the petitioner had not made any grievance against the Education Officer nor was it ever contended either before the Tribunal or before this Court that endorsement of the Education Officer on the said letter is forged. Hence, I find no merit in this contention also. 4 Review Petition is dismissed. [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]