Buldhana Education Society, ... vs Sau. Madhuri Purushottam ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 1774 Bom

                                1
                                                          wp6050.15.odt

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
             NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                   Writ Petition No.6050 of 2015

  1. Buldhana Education Society,
     Buldhana, Tq. & Distt. Buldhana,
     through its President.

  2. Aided High School & Higher
     Secondary Vidyalaya, Buldhana,
     Tq. & Distt. Buldhana, through its
     Headmaster Rajendra s/o Onkar 
     Patil.

  3. Rajendra s/o Onkar Patil,
     Aged about 51 years,
     Occupation - Service,
     R/o Shikshak Colony,
     Buldhana, Tq. & Distt. Buldhana.              ... Petitioners


       Versus


  1. Sau. Madhuri Purushottam Kulkarni,
     Aged about 54 years,
     Occupation - Service,
     R/o Chopara Layout,
     Near Bus Stand, Buldhana,
     Tq. & Distt. Buldhana.

  2. Education Officer (Secondary),
     Zilla Parishad, Buldhana,
     Tq. & Distt. Buldhana.                        ... Respondents




::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2017                  ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2017 01:03:45 :::
                                      2
                                                                   wp6050.15.odt

  Shri R.L. Khapre, Advocate for Petitioners.
  Shri Ketan Bhoskar, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
  Shri   S.B.   Bissa,   Assistant   Government   Pleader   for   Respondent 
  No.2.
  Shri R.V. Shiralkar, Advocate for Intervenor.


                Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J.

th Dated : 17 April, 2017

Oral Judgment :

1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties.

2. The first question involved before the School Tribunal

was regarding supersession in the matter of promotion to the

post of Head Master/Head Mistress of Junior College, and the

second question was regarding cancellation of the promotion of

the respondent No.1 to the said post. The School Tribunal has

set aside the promotion of the petitioner No.3 to the post of

Head Master of Junior College after holding that the cancellation

of the promotion of the respondent No.1 was not proper.

wp6050.15.odt

3. The promotion of the respondent No.1 to the post of

Incharge Head Mistress by itself does not confer upon her any

right to hold the post. The promotion as Incharge Head Mistress

can always be cancelled at any point of time. Hence, the School

Tribunal has committed an error in holding that the cancellation

of the promotion of the respondent No.1 was not proper. The

question of eligibility and qualifications of the respondent No.1

for promotion to the post of Head Mistress is required to be gone

into by the School Tribunal, as it has been raised for the first time

before this Court, so as to consider the case of supersession in the

matter of promotion. The matter is, therefore, required to be

remanded back to the School Tribunal for consideration of the

rival claims afresh by permitting the parties to suitably amend

their pleadings.

4. In the result, the petition is allowed. The judgment and

order dated 3-10-2015 passed by the School Tribunal, Amravati,

in Appeal No.02 of 2015, is hereby quashed and set aside. The

matter is remanded back to the School Tribunal to decide the

wp6050.15.odt

question of supersession of the claim of the petitioner No.3 for

promotion to the post of Head Master of Junior College on the

basis of qualifications, seniority and fitness or merit, as per the

rules. The parties to appear before the School Tribunal on

19-6-2017. No fresh notices shall be issued to the parties.

The application for intervention filed before this Court

can be considered by the School Tribunal, which shall also

consider the clubbing of the matters together for hearing, if there

are different appeals claiming promotion to the said post.

5. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to

costs.

Judge

Lanjewar