Reversion from Assistant Head to Assistant Teacher by school management is reduction in rank under MEPS Act Section 9(1)(a), requiring statutory appeal to School Tribunal; writ under Article 226 not maintainable despite seniority dispute under Rule 12.

JUDGMENT :

Hiten S. Venegavkar, J.

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission.

2. The petitioner is employed as an Assistant Teacher in respondent no.4 school, run by respondent No.3-Management, namely Hind Seva Mandal. The petition is instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assailing the communication/order dated 15.11.2025 issued by the Management, whereby the petitioner, who was made to work as Assistant Head with effect from 01.01.2025, has been reverted to the post of Assistant Teacher with effect from 16.11.2025.

3. The prayers, as placed before us, are essentially (i) to set aside the Management’s order dated 15.11.2025; (ii) to declare that the petitioner is entitled to work as Assistant Head in respondent No.4 school; and (iii) to direct respondent No.4 to forward the proposal for approval of the petitioner’s appointment/promotion as Assistant Head to respondent No.2, the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad Ahilyanagar.

4. The factual matrix, in brief, is thus: the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the year 1992. Her appointment came to be approved on 15.01.1994 by the Education Officer, and after completion of probation she was made permanent by the management. While in service, the petitioner acquired additional qualifications (including graduation, B.Ed., and post-graduate qualifications). The petitioner asserts that she ought to have been granted the B.Ed. pay scale earlier than November 2009; she further states that sanction for higher pay scale/steps was accorded in 2019.

5. The petitioner then relies upon the State’s guidelines dated 24.03.2023 concerning fixation of seniority of teachers in secondary schools under Rule 12 read with Schedule “F” of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (“MEPS Rules”). The petitioner states that she was promoted as Supervisor by the management on 30.07.2024, and was thereafter promoted/appointed as Assistant Head by order dated 30.12.2024. According to the petitioner, though she joined as Assistant Head on 01.01.2025, the proposal for approval was not forwarded to the Education Officer.

6. It is further the petitioner’s case that in November 2025 she proceeded on medical leave on account of her son’s medical needs. While on such leave, she received the impugned communication dated 15.11.2025 reverting her to the post of Assistant Teacher with effect from 16.11.2025. The impugned communication refers to (i) a circular dated 28.01.2025 issued by the State; (ii) a communication dated 03.02.2025 issued by the Education Officer; and (iii) decisions of this Court dated 11.02.2025 and 03.03.2025 (as stated in the communication). The petitioner contends that the impugned order is vague, ex parte, and unsustainable.

7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos.1 and 2.

8. At the hearing, the learned AGP raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition. It is submitted that the impugned order effects a “reduction in rank” of the petitioner, and therefore an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner under Section 9 (1)(a) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (“MEPS Act”). Learned AGP places reliance on Section 9 of the MEPS Act, which reads thus:

“ Section 9 . Right