1 WP2317-3773.10 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2317 OF 2010 ALONG WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1505 OF 2010 Shree Narayanrao Babasaheb Education Society ... Petitioner v/s The State of Maharashtra & ors. ... Respondents Mr.N.V.Bandiwadekar for the petitioner. Mr.A.I. Patel, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 5. Mr.Tejspal S. Ingale for respondent No.6. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 3773 OF 2010 Bharat Ramchandra Kamble ... Petitioner v/s The State of Maharashtra & ors. ... Respondents Mr.Tejpal S. Ingale for the petitioner. Mr.N.V.Bandiwadekar for respondent No.4. Mr.A.I. Patel, A.G.P. for Resp.Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 6. Mr.A.V.Bukhari i/by Mr.B.V.Bukhari for respondent No.7. 2 WP2317-3773.10 CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. DATED: 9TH SEPTEMBER, 2011 P.C.: 1. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. The first petition is filed by the management, whereas the second petition has been filed by an Assistant Teacher who prays for quashing and setting aside the order dated 26.2.2010 passed by the Principal Secretary, General Administrative Department, Government of Maharashtra. The very same order is also challenged by the management in the first petition. 3. By the impugned order dated 26.2.2010, it has been directed that the post of Headmaster should be offered to the teacher from S.B.C. (Special Backward Class) Category. It is the contention of the management that the post of Headmaster was required to be filled in by a candidate belonging to N.T.(B) Category and Mr.S.S.Koli, Assistant Teacher, was called upon to submit the Caste Validity Certificate by letter dated 1.9.2009 issued by the Secretary and Mr.Koli did not respond to it. Hence the case of 3 WP2317-3773.10 Mr.Rajaram Dhondiba Chavan who belongs to N.T. (A) had submitted the Caste Validity Certificate and, therefore, as per the resolution passed on 24.10.2009 he came to be promoted to the post of Assistant Headmaster in the pay scale of Rs.9300-34800 with Grade Pay of Rs.4600. His promotion was approved by the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur, on 28.10.2009. 4. On 20.11.2009, the petitioner in the second petition submitted a representation to the Principal Secretary, General Administrative Department, pointing out that the rosters of reservation are not followed as per the guidelines laid down by the Government of Maharashtra and in terms of the Government Resolution dated 27.10.2008. By the impugned order, the Principal Secretary allowed the representation and directed that the post of Assistant Headmaster was required to be filled in from amongst the candidates belonging to S.B.C. (Special Backward Class) category on the basis of rotation. 5. We have gone through the said Government Resolution dated 27.10.2008 and the affidavit in reply submitted by Mr.Sunil Namdeo Rankhambe, Deputy Secretary, General Administrative Department. It has been stated that the post of Assistant Headmaster was earlier occupied by a teacher 4 WP2317-3773.10 belonging to N.T. (B) and S.C. category and, therefore, in terms of the principle of rotation the post of Assistant Headmaster, this time, was required to be offered to a teacher belonging to S.T. category. However, such a teacher from S.T. category was not available and, therefore, it is required to be offered to a teacher belonging to S.B.C. category. Indeed, if the post was already offered to N.T. (B) and S.C. category and if it was so occupied, the contention of the State Government that this time it is required to be offered to a teacher from the S.B.S. category does not suffer from any error and if an S.T. category teacher is not available, the post has to be offered to a teacher belonging to S.B.C. 6. At the same time, if the petitioner in the second petition is a senior teacher and Mr.Rajaram Dhondiba Chavan is junior to him, the petitioner has a remedy to challenge the supersession, before the School Tribunal by filing an appeal under Section 9 of the M.E.P.S. Act. The impugned order of the Secretary has to be only read as a clarification on the interpretations of the roster and not as an order of promotion. It would be therefore necessary for the aggrieved teacher to approach the School Tribunal and get the issue adjudicated on the basis of the Government Resolution dated 27.10.2008 as well as the interpretation of 5 WP2317-3773.10 the roster as may be available on the basis of the said Government Resolution. 7. Hence, the petitions are disposed off with liberty to the petitioner in the second petition to file an appeal before the School Tribunal and if such an appeal is filed within a period of four weeks from today, we direct that it be heard and decided as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from its filing. 8. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open. 9. We also clarify that in the meanwhile, if there is an additional post of Assistant Head Master or a post of Headmaster which is required to be filled in by the management, this order or the pendency of an appeal before the School Tribunal, will not come in the way of the management to fill in such vacant post or posts. 10. In view of disposal of Writ petition No.2317 of 2010, Civil Application No.1505 of 2010 does not survive and stands dismissed. (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.) 6 WP2317-3773.10 7 WP2317-3773.10