IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that adherence to statutory procedures in promotions is mandatory, and any deviation undermines the legitimacy of the promotion process.

JUDGMENT

Shailesh P. Brahme, J. - Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard learned Counsels for the litigating sides finally.

2. Petitioner is challenging order passed by the Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad dated 04.03.2020 thereby confirming order dated 14.11.2019, revoking approval granted to the promotion of petitioner to the post of Head Master.

3. The petitioner and respondent no.5 and 6 are employees of respondent no.4/Educational Institution. There is no dispute about the dates of their appointment and status in the seniority list. Respondent No.6 was the senior most teacher at serial no.1 and the petitioner was at serial no.2 in the seniority list. Due to superannuation of earlier Head Master, on 31.05.2019 the post became vacant. The controversy involved in the petition pertains to promotion of the petitioner on to the post of Head Master.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent no.6 gave consent for the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Head Master. He was promoted to the post of Head Master vide order dated 02.06.2019. Respondent No.3/Education Officer approved the promotion vide order dated 23.07.2019. Respondent No.5 who was not the claimant of the promotional post, made complaint to the Education Officer regarding promotion of the petitioner and approval accorded on 23.07.2019. Respondent No.3/ Education Officer revoked approval vide order dated 14.11.2019. The revocation is confirmed by respondent no.2/Deputy Director of Education, which is under challenge.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. V.D. Salunke submits that though respondent no.6 was senior most teacher, due to the consent given by him in writing on 23.07.2019 which is at Exhibit-G, promotion was given to the petitioner. The consent was secured in the presence of Education Officer which was a statutory compliance. He would further submit that having granted approval on 23.07.2019, the same could not have been revoked at the instance of respondent no.5 who had no locus. It is being submitted that order of revocation amounted to review and it is without jurisdiction.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that order of promotion dated 02.06.2019 was not challenged by the respondent no.6 who could have been aggrieved, by filing appeal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Services) Regulation Act, 1977 & Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as an Act and Rules of 1981 as 'Rules'). The respondent no.2/Deputy Director of Education virtually recorded findings in favour of petitioner vide conclusion no.4 and 7 and revocation was confirmed, which is perversity. He would submit that impugned order of Deputy Director of Education would overreach order dated 17.02.2020 passed by the Division Bench in Writ Petition No.14472/2019 and is wholly unsustainable. Lastly, it is submitted that petitioner had no remedy to challenge impugned orders by approaching School Tribunal under the Act.

7. Learned Counsel Mr. N.N. Jagdale appearing for the respondent no.4 supports the petitioner and adopts his submission.

8. Learned Counsel Mr. R.I. Wakade representing respondent no.6 repels the submission of the petitioner and refers to affidavit-in-reply. He would submit that he was senior most teacher and there was no reason for him to relinquish his claim to the promotional post. He would point out that respondent no.6 had filed applications on 02.05.2019 and 28.05.2019 disclosing his desire for being appointed to the post of Head Master after superannuation of Ms. Deshmukh. He would vehemently submit that his so called written consent was obtained on 23.07.2019 under threat and pressure. He would vehemently submit that no statutory procedure as contemplated by Rule 3(3) and the explanation appended thereto was followed and promotion of the petitioner is ex-facie illegal. He would point out the circumstances by referring to his complaints in writing on 23.07.2019 and 26.07.2019 made to the manageme