1 wp 12029.16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 12029 OF 2016

Yogesh Vinayakrao Patil

.. Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and others

.. Respondents

Shri R. I. Wakade, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Shri M. B. Bharaswadkar, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

Shri Deelip Bankar Patil, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3.

Shri V. G. Salgare, Advocate for the Respondent No. 4.

Shri B. L. Sagar Killarikar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 5.

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND

MANGESH S. PATIL, JJ.

DATE : 26TH SEPTEMBER, 2017.

FINAL ORDER :

.

Mr. Wakade, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that, the petitioner was appointed on 11.06.1998 as an Assistant

Teacher. In the year 2003 the post of Head Master became

vacant. There were two teachers senior to the petitioner,

however, present respondent No. 5 and another senior teacher

Smt. Thorat gave their no objection in writing before the

respondent/management and the Education Officer to appoint

the present petitioner as Head Master. The petitioner was

appointed as Head Master on 22.08.2003. The appointment of

the petitioner as Head Master was also approved by the

2 wp 12029.16

Education Officer. The learned counsel submits that,

erroneously the petitioner was reverted from the post of Head

Master to the post of Assistant Teacher on 04.03.2015. The

petitioner challenged the said order of reversion before the School

Tribunal by filing appeal. On the basis of assurance given by the

management, the petitioner withdrew the appeal. The

management in August 2016 passed a resolution thereby

revoking reversion order and reinstating the petitioner as Head

Master. The proposal is submitted by the management to the

Education Officer to approve the reinstatement of the petitioner

as Head Master. By the impugned order the said proposal is

rejected.

2.

The learned counsel further submits that, the management

by a subsequent resolution on 14.09.2016 revoked earlier

resolution passed of revoking of reversion. The said resolution is

illegal and does not stand to any reason.

The

respondent/management cannot again revert the petitioner. The

learned counsel submits that, the person senior to the petitioner

once having given no objection to the appointment of the

petitioner as Head Master looses his right to claim the post of

Head Master. The petitioner was not newly appointed as a Head

Master, but was reinstated on his original post of Head Master.

Rule 3 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools

(Condition of Service Regulation) Rules (for short "M.E.P.S.

Rules) clearly applies. According to the learned counsel act of the

3 wp 12029.16

Education Officer and the management is illegal. The petitioner

being a permanent employee, he cannot be dis-engaged from the

post of Head Master, unless a fresh order of reversion is passed.

The petitioner is entitled to hold the post of head master.

3.

Mr. Salgare, the learned counsel for the

respondent/management submits that, considering the

exigencies of the situation, resolutions are passed.

4.

Mr. Bankar Patil, the learned counsel for the Education

Officer submits that, the petitioner was reverted. The post of

head master became vacant. The petitioner also joined as

Assistant Teacher and in view of that, the respondent No. 5 being

senior most teacher will have to be considered for the post of

Head Master.

5.

Mr. Sagar Killarikar, the learned counsel for the

respondent No. 5 submits that, no objection was given by the

respondent No. 5 before the management and not before the

Education Officer. The said no objection of the year 2003 is not

in consonance with Rul