Bombay High Court
Shardha Ramesh Bagdi Alias ... vs The Secretary And Others on 18 November, 2021
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
1 926-wp-12075-21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
926 WRIT PETITION NO.12075 OF 2021
Sharudha D/O Ramesh Bagdi,
@ Shardha W/O Moses Srisunder.,
Age 43 YEARS Occu Assistant Teacher,
In Dr. Fraser Boy's High School,
At Jalna Tq. and Dist. Jalna.
r/o At Plot No.120, Saraswati Colony,
Tq. and Dist. Jalna.
Pin - 431 203 ...PETITIONER
( Original Appellant )
VERSUS
1. The Secretary.,
John Wilson Education Society,
Wilson College, Mumbai,
Mumbai.,
Tq.and Dist. Mumbai.
2. Smt.Archana Ramesh More,
Age Major Occu Service.,
Head Mistress,
Dr. Frasor Boy's High School,
At Jalna Tq. and Dist. Jalna. ....RESPONDENTS
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. S. R. Kolhare
AGP for Respondents - State : Mr. K. B. Jadhavar
Advocate for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Salgare h/f.
Mr. N. V. Gaware
Advocate for Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Subhash Chillarge
...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 18.11.2021
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the
learned AGP for the State.
2 926-wp-12075-21.odt
2. The petitioner being aggrieved by the appointment of
respondent No.2 to the post of Head Mistress of a School by
direct recruitment, preferred an appeal under Section 9 of the
Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of
Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (hereinafter the Act). By the
impugned order, the School Tribunal has dismissed the appeal.
3. Reading of provision contained in Section 9 of the Act
reveals that an employee of a private school who is dismissed
or removed from services or otherwise terminated, or who is
reduced in rank by the order passed by the Management or
who is superseded by the Management by making an
appointment to any post by promotion, has been given a right
to prefer an appeal to the Tribunal. The appeal memo of the
petitioner before the School Tribunal inter alia reads as under :
Para No.11- "That, the Respondent No. 1, without
following due and Mandatory provisions of Section 3
and Rule 3 And 6 R/W Schedule B of MEPS Rules,
1981, i.e. without Following the seniority cum merit
rule directly Appointed the Respondent No. 2 to the
Post of Head Mistress, therefore, the Appellant made
representation on 20th December 2019, regarding
the illegality committed by the Respondent No.1,
while Appointing the Respondent No.2, to the post of
Head Mistress. A copy of representation dated 20 th
3 926-wp-12075-21.odt
December 2019 is annexed herewith and marked as
Exhibit -J."
4. These pleadings clearly indicate that the respondent No.2
was directly appointed to the post of Head Mistress, when,
according to the petitioner, the post could have been flled
only by way of promotion by virtue of Sections 3 and 6 r/w
Schedule B of the Act. If such is the state of afairs, a case of
the petitioner would not fall in the category of supersession as
contemplated under Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 9
of the Act. There is no supersession.
5. Needless to state that unless the case is covered strictly
in accordance with the provisions contained in Clauses (a) and
(b) of sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Act,the remedy of
appeal would not be available. When according to the
petitioner, on her own saying the respondent No. 2 was
appointed by way of direct appointment to the post of
headmistress and that there was no supersession, she had no
right to challenge such appointment by preferring an appeal
under Section 9 of the Act.
6. Though this was not an issue that was agitated and
considered before the Tribunal, as can be seen from the
4 926-wp-12075-21.odt
impugned judgment and order, still, when the facts and
circumstances clearly demonstrate that this is not a case of
supersession, there is no merit in the petition.
7. The Writ Petition is dismissed in limine.
( MANGESH S. PATIL )
JUDGE
shp/-
