JUDGMENT - RATNAPARKHI M.S., J.:---The petitioner seeks a mandate of this Court commanding the respondents that she be appointed as Assistant Head Mistress in the Girls Secondary School run by the respondent No. 2 with retrospective effect and the appointment of respondent No. 3 to that post is sought to be quashed.

2. Facts giving rise to this limitation may be briefly stated as follows :

The petitioner holds a degree of M.Sc. and B.Ed. The respondent No. 2 Nevjabai Hitkarini Education Society runs two High Schools at Brahmapuri, of which the Girls High School is one. The petitioner entered the service of respondent No. 2 on 19-6-1978 vide Annexure 1. She joined as Assistant Teacher in the Girls High School on the pay scales admissible then. She was confirmed in that post subsequently. She continue to serve with that Girls High School even today. The respondent No. 3 was also serving as Assistant Teacher in the High School run by the respondent No. 3. He joined sometime in 1966 and continues to be one of the seniormost teachers in that institution even today.

3. According to the petitioner the post of Astt. Head Mistress was created in the Girls High School. The petitioner being the seniormost lady teacher she applied for that post on 30th November, 1985. According to her she was the seniormost lady teacher in the Girls High School and she belongs to the scheduled caste. In addition, she also had all the requisite qualifications for the appointment to that post. According to her, it being a Girls High School the principle laid down in sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 should be applicable to the post of Assistant Head Mistress also. However, ignoring her claim, the respondent No. 2 appointed the respondent No. 3 to that post sometime in December 1986. She made representations to the respondent No. 2. She also made representations to the educational authorities. A direction was issued by the educational authorities to the respondent No. 2 to appoint the petitioner as Assistant Head Mistress as the school was exclusively a Girls High School and the petitioner was a seniormost in that school. In spite of this direction the respondent No. 2 has failed to carry out the same. According to her the educational authorities who are joined as respondents 1 to 4 have mala fide acted in negativing her claims for the appointment to that post.

4. The respondents Nos. 1 to 4 preferred not to respondent to the notice issued by this Court. Respondents 2 and 3 appeared before this Court. The respondents 2 and 3 filed their submissions before admission. According to respondent No. 3, he was appointed long back on 20-6-1966 and he is one of the teachers in the school and definitely senior to the petitioner. According to him, the Girls High School is not a separate entity. It is a part and parcel of the Boys High School run by that institution and teachers are freely transferred from one branch to another. According to him, as shown in the seniority list he is senior to the petitioner and he also belongs to scheduled caste community. He being the seniormost man was appointed to the post of Assistant Head Master and this appointment was perfectly legal. His appointment dates back to 12-12-1986 and since then he is working in that post. According to him exception carved out in sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 of the Rules is applicable to the post of Head Master and not to the post of Assistant Head Master.

5. Mr. Masodkar, learned Advocate for the petitioner took us extensively through the record. The undisputed position which prevails at this stage is that the petitioner was appointed in 1978, whereas the respondent No. 3 was appointed in 1966. In fact the petitioner has raised the contention at one stage that the seniority list was never prepared by the respondent No. 2. A request was made before this Court for directing the respondent No. 2 to produce the seniority list for the perusa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document