JUDGMENT :

S.G. MEHARE, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with consent of the parties. Heard the respective counsels.

2. The issues involved in both the writ petitions are interlinked, hence, taken up for disposal together.

3. The questions of inter se seniority and appointment as Head of the School have been raised in these petitions.

4. To appreciate the lis between the parties, it will be appropriate to refer to the relevant facts of petitions for consideration conjointly as under :-

Both the petitioners will be referred to by their names hereinafter for convenience.

Petitioner Shri Sase has impugned the Order of respondent no.2/Education Officer dated 05.01.2019, holding petitioner Shri Kurhe senior to him. Petitioner Shri Kurhe has impugned the Order of the same Education Officer dated 21.01.2019, declining approval to his appointment as Head of the School. In view of the directions issued by this Court in W.P. No.10346/2018, the seniority dispute of both Petitioners was decided by respondent no.2 by his Order dated 05.01.2019. By Order dated 05.09.2018, respondent no.2, had accorded sanction in favour of Shri Sase to look after the day to day affairs of the School and sign the pay bills. Petitioner Shri Sase had filed a W.P. No.6442/2021 before the Division Bench of this Court. The Coordinate Bench of this Court had issued directions to the Director of Education Pune, to consider all the earlier Orders passed before and take the decision afresh expeditiously. Accordingly, The Deputy Director decided the dispute on 03.01.2022 and cancelled the promotion granted to Shri Sase as Head Master. Shri Sase again challenged the said Order in W.P. no.1018/2022. Once again, the Division Bench of this Court, by its Order dated 19.01.2022, granted an opportunity to Shri Sase and the school management to submit all documents. This Court had directed the Deputy Director of Education to take a decision afresh regarding the approval of his appointment as Head Master, preferably before 20.02.2022.

5. It is not disputed that Shri Sase was appointed as a Special teacher on 30.06.1987, and he was S.S.C. A.T.D. Shri Kurhe was appointed as an Assistant teacher on 13.06.1986, and he was M.A. B.Ed.

Shri Sase has no objection that Shri Kurhe was appointed earlier to him, however, as there was a break in his service, hence he could not be held senior to him. He claimed that he is the senior-most employee in the School. Under the Order of respondent no.2 dated 05.09.2018, he was looking after the day-to-day affairs of the School and was signing the pay bills. Respondent no. 2 erred in law in not considering the break in service of Shri Kurhe.

6. Shri Dhage, the learned counsel for the Petitioner Shri Kurhe vehemently argued that the Petitioner was not only appointed earlier to the appointment of Shri. Sase, but also a trained teacher holding M.A., B.Ed degree. Shri Kurhe was the only candidate qualified and eligible for the appointment as Head Master. As usual, the dispute in the Management made him a scapegoat and put him at a great loss to enjoy the post of Head Master. Shri Sase was not qualified and eligible to be appointed as Head Master, but only due to the favourable management he was appointed on the said post. Unfortunately, respondent no.2, the same Education Officer, granted approval to his appointment in contravention of the M.E.P.S. Rules and Regulations. The other rival group of Management successfully deprived the Petitioner of the post of Head Master till he retired on superannuation on 31.05.2019. Though the Petitioner is retired on superannuation, his right to claim the seniority benefit as Head Master still survives. In the circumstance of the case and having regard to the conduct of the Management and Shri Sase, heavy cost may be imposed on them.

7. Per contra learned counsel Shri Jagtap for petitioner Shri Sase would argue that the respondent/Education Officer has not considered the roster dated 26.12.1990, whic