1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2384/2008 (Ku. Anita Dattopant Sadafale Vs. The President, New Edn. So. & ors.) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATED : 6 th OCTOBER, 2008. Heard Shri Kadu for the petitioner, and Shri Parihar,the learned A.G.P., for respondent no.5. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the judgment passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati, on 31/10/2007, by which the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The petitioner had filed an appeal before the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati, challenging the promotion of one Shri P.U. Khandare, as in-charge Headmaster. According to her, since she belongs to the Scheduled Caste category and the vacancy of the post of the Headmaster was for a reserved category candidate, the petitioner was entitled to be appointed on the post of the Headmaster. According to the petitioner, the respondent-institution was running two schools and, therefore, it was necessary for the institution to 2 appoint the petitioner as a Headmistress from the backward class candidates. The claim of the petitioner was opposed by the respondent. The Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, held that the petitioner failed to prove that she had a legitimate right of promotion to the post of Headmistress and the respondent had denied the same to her. For rejecting the claim of the petitioner based on reservation, the Tribunal rightly considered the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court. By relying on the decision of this Court, the Tribunal observed that unless and until there were four posts available, none of them could have been reserved for a candidate from the backward category. In the instant case, since the posts of Headmaster were only two, according to the Tribunal, and rightly so, the petitioner had failed to prove that she had a legitimate right to be promoted on the post of the Headmistress on the ground that she belonged to the Scheduled Caste. There is no error whatsoever in the findings recorded by the Tribunal as none of the two posts of Headmasters could have been reserved for a backward class candidate. Since the petitioner had based her claim only on the ground of reservation and not on the basis of her position in the general seniority list, the Tribunal committed no mistake in 3 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner wanted to delete the name of Shri P.U. Khandare from the array of respondents and to add the name of one Shri S.J. Kale who belonged to N.T. category, was not considered by the Tribunal and the judgment passed in appeal is liable to the set aside because the said application made by the petitioner is not decided, is rejected for the simple reason that the petitioner had no locus to file an appeal on the set of facts pleaded in the appeal memo. The petitioner had not claimed the post of Headmistress on the basis of her seniority in general seniority list, but had claimed the post on the basis of the reservation. The judgment of the Full Bench of this Court reported in 2006 (6) Mh.L.J. 882, was rightly considered by the Tribunal for dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. The amendment application filed by the petitioner, had no bearing on the issue involved in the appeal and, therefore, the impugned judgment cannot be faulted on this extraneous ground. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP