JUDGMENT :

A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.

1. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner and the respondent no. 4 are serving as Headmaster and Assistant Teacher respectively at the school run by the respondent no. 3. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher on 09.09.1985 while the respondent no. 4 was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 11.12.2002. Their appointments were duly approved by the Education Officer (Secondary). The petitioner was shown to be senior than the respondent no. 4 in the seniority list that was prepared for the years 2017-18 and 2018-19. In the seniority list for the year 2018-19, the petitioner was shown at Serial Number 1 while the respondent no. 4 was shown at Serial Number 6. On 30.04.2018 the Management passed a resolution promoting the petitioner to the post of Headmaster from 01.05.2018. The petitioner accordingly took charge of the post of Headmaster from 01.05.2018 and his appointment as such was approved by the Education Officer (Secondary) on 17.05.2018. It is the case of the respondent no. 4 that his placement in the seniority list for the year 2018-19 was improper and he ought to be s