JUDGMENT :

Mangesh S. Patil, J.

This reference to the Larger Bench as per the order of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice arises on the backdrop of the following facts:-

(i) The petitioner as well as the respondent no. 5 have been serving as teachers in the school being run by the respondent no. 4 – management.

(ii) The respondent no. 4 - management appointed the petitioner as the Headmaster with effect from 01-06-1019.

(iii) The management forwarded the proposal to the respondent no. 3 - Education Officer for approval to the appointment of the petitioner in terms of the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Act, 1977 (hereinafter MEPS Act) and rule 3.1 and rule 3.3 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (hereinafter MEPS Rules), by communication dated 28-05-2020.

(iv) The respondent no. 5 raised an objection with the respondent no. 4 - management and the respondent no. 3 - Education Officer.

(v) Apart from the respondent no. 4 even one Kindhe Sureskha Janardhan also raised an objection to the seniority list prepared and maintained by the management showing the petitioner to be the senior most amongst the teachers.

(vi) In writ petition no. 10346 of 2018 dated 11-09-2018, the respondent no. 3 - Education Officer was directed to hear all and decide the issue regarding inter se seniority.

(vii) By the order dated 05-01-2019, the respondent no. 3 - Education Officer after hearing the parties held one Kurhe Pandurang Rangnath as the senior most and the petitioner to be the second senior in the seniority list.

(viii) Since only Kurhe Pandurang Rangnath and the petitioner were found to be senior most and second senior most respectively, the respondent no. 5 filed writ petition no. 674 of 2019 but it was dismissed.

(ix) The management promoted the petitioner as the headmaster and the respondent no. 3 - Education Officer granted approval on 28-05-2020.

(x) The respondent no. 5 approached the respondent no. 2 - Deputy Director of Education and submitted the complaint objecting to such appointment and approval of the petitioner.

(xi) On a complaint filed by the respondent no. 5 with the respondent - Deputy Director of Education, he heard Gorakshnath Kurhe and the respondent no. 5 and observing that the dispute amongst the management was pending before the Charity Commissioner and since the dispute regarding inter se seniority of the petitioner and Mr. Pandurang Kurhe was pending before the High Court, the approval granted to the appointment of the petitioner as a Headmaster was improper and he cancelled it by further directing that till the time matter before the Charity Commissioner and the High Court were decided, a senior most teacher of the school be appointed as an Incharge Headmaster, by order dated 19-04-2021. This order was communicated to the petitioner by the respondent no. 3 - Education Officer on 05-05-2021.

(xii) Petitioner challenged the order passed by the respondent no. 2 - DDE in writ petition no. 6442 of 2021 arraying the respondent no. 5 as respondent in that petition. This Court disposed of the petition with following observations and directions on 18-11-2021:-

“9. The Deputy Director of Education, certainly can consider legality of the order of approval issued by the Education Officer, as he is higher authority. The contention of the petitioner that, the Deputy Director of Education did not have jurisdiction to decide the issue in dispute is not accepted. However, the manner in which the Deputy Director of Education has decided is improper. Now the respondent No. 5 also contends that he is appointed as Head Master. All these aspects will have to be considered by the Deputy Director of Education.

10. The Deputy Director of Education can certainly consider whether the petitioner is having necessary qualification to be appointed as Head Master and other aspects required for granting approval. The parties can agitate all these aspects before the Deputy