JUDGMENT - VIJAY DAGA, J.:---Rule.

2. Learned Counsel for the respondents waive service. Heard forthwith by consent of parties.

Relief Claimed :

3. The petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge his supersession by the management, while making an appointment by promotion, to the post of Head Master in respondent No. 4 secondary school run by respondent No. 3 society under the name and style Adarsha Vidya Mandir, Dakiwali, Taluka Wadha, District- Thane. The petitioner has claimed directions against respondent No. 2, the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Thane and respondent No. 3 society, to count his services rendered in respondent No. 4 school, from 2nd July, 1993 as Head Master and, thereafter, as Assistant Teacher from the academic year 1994-95 and claimed all further consequential service benefits including appointment to the post of Head Master of respondent No. 4 school.

4. In order to appreciate the grievances of the petitioner and his justification to approach this Court directly under Article 226 of the Constitution, few relevant facts, together with the legal scenario holding the field, need to be noticed at the outset.

BRIEF FACTS :

5. The petitioner was appointed by respondent No. 3 society in respondent No. 4 secondary school by an order dated 1st June, 1993. The said secondary school is recognised by Government of Maharashtra. In the academic year 1993-94, the said school had only one division of 8th standard as the school itself was established and opened in the month of June 1993. Thus, according to the petitioner at the relevant time only 1-1/2 posts were admissible to the said school. Accordingly, he was appointed as Head Master in one of the admissible posts. The respondent No. 5 Mrs. Dipti Patil was appointed as Assistant Teacher by an order dated 13th June, 1993 in the balance post, which, according to the petitioner, was neither substantive nor admissible looking to the strength of the school. The petitioner has projected his own appointment as on full time basis against the substantive post.

6. In subsequent academic years commencing from 1995-96, the petitioner and respondent No. 5 both were appointed as Assistant Teacher and the said staff schedule of the school was also approved by respondent No. 2, Education Officer. However, in the year 1996-97 and 1997-98, respondent No. 5 was appointed and approved as In-charge Head Mistress.

7. The school started receiving 100% grant in aid with effect from June 1997. The petitioner having completed his 5 years of service in the said school, claimed to have became entitled to the appointed as Head Master of the school in view of Rule 3 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools, (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 framed under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools, (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules" and "Act" respectively, for the sake of brevity).

8. The petitioner claimed to have approached respondent No. 3 on several occasions and requested to grant him an appointment to the post of Head Master of respondent No. 4 school being senior most confirmed teacher. However, respondent No. 3 did not issue any such appointment in favour of the petitioner. On the contrary, respondent No. 5 was given a scale of Head Master with effect from June 1998.

9. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the above decision of the management of the school, amounting to supersession, while making an appointment by promotion, made representation to respondent No. 2, Education Officer and respondent No. 3, society running respondent No. 4 school and requested them to count his length of service from June-July 1993 to determine his seniority and further requested for appointment to the post of Head Master of respondent No. 4 school. He further asserted in his representation that respondent No. 5 was never appointed on a substantive post in the month of June 1993 and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document