Court upheld the Education Officer's appointment rules, affirming decisions on teacher seniority cannot be contested without basis, and imposed costs for misuse of judicial processes.

JUDGMENT :

M.W. CHANDWANI , J.

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels for the parties.

3. The petition challenges the order dated 07.08.2025 passed by respondent no. 1-Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Bhandara appointing respondent no. 2-Bhishma Namdeo Tembhurne as Incharge Headmaster of the school run by the petitioner- Society.

4. Directions were issued to the Education Officer to decide the seniority of the teachers and also to consequently decide the question of the appointment of Incharge Headmaster as per Rule 3(3) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Services) Regulation Act, 1977 and Rules, 1981 (for short “MEPS Rules”). A number of Writ Petitions have been filed for appointment of teachers as well as on the issue of seniority amongst the teachers, more particularly for the purpose of securing the post of Incharge Headmaster.

5. The petitioner is a Society registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act and runs educational institutions including Nisha Vidyalaya at Bhandara City. Due to a shortage of students, there was no regular post of ‘Headmaster’ in the school. As per Rule 3(3) of the MEPS Rules, the senior-most teacher of the school is being appointed as ‘Incharge Headmaster’ by the Education Officer. Since, the financial and administrative powers are vested with the Headmaster, the dispute with regard to seniority is being raised every now and then by the Management as well as Mr. Wadibhasme, who also happens to be the Secretary of the Management

6. It is pertinent to note here that initially, Smt. Kathale was working as the Headmistress till 24.10.1996 and later, her services were terminated. The said termination was challenged in Writ Petition No. 3909/2015. Meanwhile, some senior teachers were holding the post of Incharge Headmaster till 2006. In the year 2007, Mr. Manoj Wadibhasme came to be appointed as Incharge Headmaster subject to the decision in the petition filed by Smt. Kathale. It is pertinent to note that, Mr. Wadibhasme who happens to be the son of the then President, was appointed directly as Incharge Headmaster of the school. However, respondent no. 1 stayed/withdrew the approval granted to the proposal appointing Mr. Wadibhasme as Incharge Headmaster.

7. Later on, the said order of respondent no. 1 came to be challenged in Writ Petition No. 5581/2011. The said Writ Petition met the fate of dismissal at the hands of this Court vide order dated 13.02.2012. An unsuccessful attempt was also made by filing Special Leave Petition (SLP) No. 16795/2012. Again, a fresh proposal was made to respondent no. 1 showing the promotion of Mr. Wadibhasme as Incharge Headmaster of the school and the proposal was sent for approval. In Writ Petition No. 4743/2015 decided on 04.09.2015, a direction was sought by the petitioner to consider and decide the proposal for appointment of Mr. Wadibhasme on the post of Incharge Headmaster within two months. By a communication dated 16.10.2015, it was informed that the proposal for appointment of Mr. Wadibhasme was already rejected on 04.09.2015. The said order again came to be challenged in Writ Petition No. 6485/2015, which came to be dismissed by order dated 17.06.2016, since the appointment of Mr. Wadibhasme was in contravention of sub-Rule 3 of Rule 12 of the MEPS Rules i.e. without observing inter se seniority.

8. Mr. Wazade, the senior-most teacher came to be appointed as Incharge Headmaster of the school. After superannuation of Mr. Wazade, again the petitioner-Management sent the proposal of Mr. Wadibhasme as Incharge