: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3968 OF 2010 Shreerang Education Society & Anr. .. Petitioners V/s. Neeta Ramchandra Munj & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. S.V. Pitre for the Petitioners. Mr. N.M. Shaikh for Respondent No.1. ALONG WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1518 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3968 OF 2010 Sanjay Bal Dudawadkar .. Applicant V/s. Shreerang Education Society & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. N.V. Bandiwadekar for the Applicant. Mr. S.V. Pitre for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mr. N.M. Shaikh for Respondent No.3. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 2 ND JULY, 2010. P.C.: 1. The Writ Petition has been filed by the Management of the School against the order dated 7th April, 2010, passed by the Additional School Tribunal, Mumbai, in Appeal No.1 of 2010 filed by Respondent No.1. The Respondent No.1 has filed the Appeal before the School Tribunal contending that : 2 : she had been reduced in rank on 1st December, 2009 under the guise of a transfer order. According to the Respondent No.1, this reduction in rank was from the post of ‘Senior Clerk’ to ‘Junior Clerk’ in the Secondary Section of the School. 2. The Petitioners contend that this action was taken as the Respondent No.1 was promoted as a ‘Senior Clerk’ when the post became available only because her husband was the President of the Education Institution. It is further contended that one Shri. Sanjay Dudawadkar who was also claiming the post of ‘Senior Clerk’ has not been joined as a party to the Appeal before the School Tribunal filed by the Respondent No.1. It is, therefore, submitted that the order of the School Tribunal is erroneous. 3. The School Tribunal has considered whether the reduction in rank of the Respondent No.1 from the post of ‘Senior Clerk’ to the post of ‘Junior Clerk’ was legal. It has found that the Education Officer has, after considering the case of the : 3 : Respondent No.1, found that she is entitled to be posted as a ‘Senior Clerk’ on 13th April, 2007. 4. According to Mr. Pitre, the learned Advocate for the Petitioner-Management, this order of the Education Officer is not final and the School Tribunal ought to have considered the validity of this order. He further submits that Shri. Dudawadkar has sought cancellation of this order and, therefore, it is not possible to implement the said order. 5. In my view, the submission of Mr. Pitre cannot be accepted. The School Tribunal was not called upon to consider whether the order passed by the Education Officer dated 7th October, 2009 was correct as the question before the School Tribunal was not the interse seniority between the Respondent No.1 and Shri. Dudawadkar. In fact, that is why Shri. Dudawadkar was not a party to the proceedings before the School Tribunal. : 4 : 6. The issue before the School Tribunal was only whether the reduction in rank of the Respondent No.1 was legal. The School Tribunal has found that this reduction in rank was contrary to law and has, therefore, directed the Petitioners to appoint the Respondent No.1 as a ‘Senior Clerk’. 7. In my view, this order of the School Tribunal cannot be faulted as there is no challenge to the order of the Education Officer. Therefore, the order of the Education Officer must be complied with. 8. The Writ Petition is dismissed. 9. The Civil Application filed by Shri. Dudawadkar is also dismissed. 10. The Education Officer who is ceased of Shri. Dudawadkar’s application for cancellation of the earlier order may decide the same on merits.