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