The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following the provisions of Rule 12 of the Maharashtra Employee of Private Schools (Conditions of Services) Regulation Rules, 1981, in preparing and maintaining seniority lists and resolving disputes in inter se seniority.

JUDGMENT

N. J. Jamadar, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.

2. This Petition assails the legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment and order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Pune dated 6th April, 2022, in Appeal No.29 of 2021, whereby the Appeal preferred by the respondent No. 6, came to be allowed and the order of promotion of the petitioner-respondent No. 6 therein, to the post of Head Master dated 1st January, 2021, came to be quashed and set aside with a direction to respondent No.1-Society to promote respondent No.6 herein to the post of Head Mistress in respondent No. 3 - School with effect from 1st January, 2021, with backwages and continuity of service and all consequential benefits.

3. The Petition arises in the backdrop of the following facts:-

(a) Respondent No.1 - Mahatma Phule Vidyaniketan Sanstha is a Public Charitable Trust registered under Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950. It runs various pre-primary, primary and secondary schools. Dnyanprobdhini Prathmik Vidyamandir - respondent No. 3 is one of the schools run by respondent No. 1. Petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in respondent No. 3- School on 1st June, 1993. Education Officer, Zila Parishad, Pune- respondent No. 5 gave approval to the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Teacher, vide letter dated 10th June, 1994, with effect from June, 1993. Respondent No. 6 was also appointed as Assistant Teacher in the said school on 1st June, 1993.

(b) The petitioner claims that till the year 2017, in the seniority list of the Assistant Teachers maintained at respondent No. 3 - School, the petitioner was shown senior to respondent No. 6. The petitioner being placed at Sr. No. 3 and respondent No. 6 at Sr. No. 4. Respondent No. 6 never challenged the said seniority list till the year 2020.

(c) On 1st February, 2018, Mrs. Meghna M. Patki, who was working as a Head Mistress, retired. In breach of the rules, respondent No. 1 made changes in the seniority list for the year 2018-2019. Respondent No. 6 was shown at Sr. No. 4 and petitioner at Sr. No. 5. Taking umbrage, the petitioner raised an objection to the seniority list. Yet, the respondent No. 1 promoted respondent No. 6 to the post of Head Mistress and forwarded the proposal for approval to Administrative Officer Primary Education Department, Pune Municipal Corporation - respondent No. 4. The petitioner raised an objection before the respondent No. 4 about the promotion as well as seniority list for the year 2018-2019.

(d) Vide communication dated 22nd November, 2019, respondent No. 4 rejected the proposal for approval to the appointment of respondent No. 6 to the post of Head Mistress pointing out that in accordance with the Rule 12 of Maharashtra Employee of Private Schools (Conditions of Services) Regulation Rules, 1981 ('the Rules, 1981'), where the date of appointment is same, an employee who is senior by age, shall be considered senior in service. Petitioner asserts the said order attained finality.

(e) Thereupon, respondent No. 1 by an order dated 19th December, 2019, reduced respondent No.6 from the post of Head Mistress to Assistant Teacher at respondent No. 3-School. Respondent No. 1, thereafter promoted petitioner to the post of Head Mistress vide order dated 1st January, 2021. Respondent No. 4 granted approval to the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Head Mistress by communication dated 11th February,2021.

(f) Respondent No. 6 challenged the order dated 1st January, 2021, promoting the petitioner to the post of Head Mistress by preferring an Appeal No.29 of 2021. Petitioner as well as respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed reply in the said Appeal. After appraisal of the material and hearing the parties, the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal by the impugned order was persuaded to allow the Appeal preferred by respondent No. 6 and set aside the order of petitioner's promotion dated 1st January, 2021.

4. The learned Pre