1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3714 OF 2005 Smt. Pushpalata Eknath Wagh, R/o-Raighad, Buradgaon Road, Ahmednagar. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, 2) Deputy Director of Education, Pune Division, Dr. Ambedkar Marg, Pune, 3) Principal, Residential High School, Lal Taki Road, Ahmednagar, 4) The Secretary, Ahmednagar Zilla Maratha Vidya Prasarak Samaj, Lal Taki Road, Ahmednagar. 5) Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar, 6) Kisan Dhondiba Kulat, R/o-Shri Vidhyashwar High School and Junior College, Tisgaon, Tq-Pathardi, Dist-Ahmednagar, 2 7) Head Master, Chatrapati Shivaji Vidyalaya, A/p-Deolali Pravara, Tq-Rahuri, Dist-Ahmednagar. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri.R.K. Temkar Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.R.P. Phatke, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Shri.V.D. Hon Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 7. Shri.S.A. Kulkarni Advocate for Respondent No.6. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 27TH JULY, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. According to the Petitioner, she was appointed on 22nd June 1966, as Assistant Teacher. In the year 1969 she acquired qualification of B.A. In the year 1971 she obtained B.Ed degree. In the year 1991 she acquired qualification of M.A. Whereas the Respondent No.6, according to the 3 Petitioner, had acquired qualification of B.A. in the year 1979, B.Ed. in the year 1982 and M.A. in the year 1986. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner ought to have been promoted from the secondary school to junior college as a Assistant Teacher as she was senior, qualified and meritorious as compared to Respondent No.6. The Petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition No.440 of 1998. We have perused the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the said Petition. The said Petition was disposed of by issuing directions to the Education Officer to decide and adjudicate the dispute under Rule 12 of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981. Accordingly the Education Officer passed order dated 16th June, 2003 and communicated the same to the Petitioner. The Management considered the request of the Petitioner in its meeting dated 5th March, 2004 and rejected the request of the 4 Petitioner. 4. The counsel for the Management and Respondent No.6 submit that in the light of the policy of the State as prescribed at the relevant time and in view of the fact that the Respondent No.6 was qualified to hold the post, he was accordingly appointed. The counsel for Management submits that merit of Respondent No.6 was also considered at the time of appointment, along with the seniority. 5. The learned A.G.P. has placed reliance on the affidavit in reply and justified his stand that the Respondent No.6 was rightly appointed. 6. We are not convinced with the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. Crucial fact which is required to be noted, is that there has been abnormal delay in filing this Petition. The Petitioner retired on 1st October, 2005, the Petition has been filed on 5 4th May, 2005. In the light of these facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to exercise our extra ordinary writ jurisdiction in the facts of the case. The Writ Petition is rejected. [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/JULY10/wp3714.05