The court emphasized the importance of seniority and the jurisdiction of the School Tribunal in matters of teacher appointments.

JUDGMENT

AMIT BORKAR, J. - By this petition, a teacher whose claim for appointment as a Headmistress of a school had been rejected by the School Tribunal by the impugned judgment on the following reasons:

i. Petitioner was not available on the establishment on the date of appointment of respondent No. 2 as a Headmistress.

ii. Petitioner had not made her claim on the post of Headmistress.

iii. The aggrieved employee by appointment under Rule 3(5) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Condition of Service) Regulation Rules, 1981 (for short, 'MEPS") has remedy to challenge such appointment to Deputy Director of Education under Rule 3(6) of the MEPS and hence Appeal under sec. 9 is not maintainable.

2. The facts relevant for the adjudication of the petition are as under:

(a) The petitioner was appointed as a trained graduate teacher on 9/8/1984, who holds qualification BA, BEd. However, on 6/5/1988, the services of the petitioner were terminated. The petitioner challenged the termination by way of appeal before the School Tribunal, and School Tribunal, by order dtd. 21/6/1988, granted a stay to the termination. The order of stay of termination was in force till 13/12/1990. (b) In the meantime, respondent No. 2 was appointed initially as an untrained teacher with effect from 9/8/1984 who acquired the qualification of B.Ed. In September 1987. Therefore, for the purpose of seniority, it will have to be counted from the date of acquisition of the qualification, i.e. from September 1987.

(c) Despite the order of stay to the termination, the Management on 3/5/1990 appointed respondent No. 2 as Headmistress, effective from 1/6/1990. The petitioner had challenged the said appointment by filing Appeal No. 178/ 1992-A. However, the said appeal has been dismissed by an impugned judgment for the reasons stated above. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition.

3. This Court, on 5/1/2010, issued notice for final disposal; thereafter, on 25/1/2010, this Court issued Rule in the present petition.

4. The record discloses that on 3/8/2021, on behalf of Advocate for respondents Nos . 2 and 3, an adjournment was sought as he was out of the station. Thereafter, on 4/10/2021, none appeared for the parti es. On 3/1/2022, the Advocate for respondents Nos. 2 and 3 was absent. On 20/6/2022, again Advocate for respondents Nos. 2 and 3 was absent and therefore in order to give one more opportunity the petition was adjourned. On 14/7/2022, the Advocate for respondents Nos. 2 and 3 was absent. Therefore as and by of indulgence, the writ petition was kept on 21/7/2022 by passing an order that if on the next date none appears for the respondents, the writ petition will be decided on its own merit. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned at the instance of either petitioner or respondents. Today again, an adjourned is sought on behalf of respondents on the ground that the advocate for respondents Nos. 2 and 3 is at outstation Court and cannot attend this Court.

5. With a view to disposing of old final hearing matters, Thursday and Friday are days fixed exclusively for final hearing matters. A specific note is published on all days of the week stating that in final hearing matters, no adjournment shall be granted to any party on any ground. The board of final hearing is published on the evening of Friday, i.e. on 8/9/2022. Therefore, it was obligatory for the Advocate for respondents to appear in this matter and to make his submissions on merits. Unless the Advocates co-operate with the Court for disposal of the final hearing matter, it is not possible to dispose of the final hearing old matters. It is expected from the members of the Bar that they must co-operate with the Court for the disposal of old matters, particularly when there is a specific note published on the board stating that no adjournment shall be granted on any ground.

6. Adjournment of cases reached for hearing according to the final hearing list should be an exception and no