Bombay High Court
Buldhana Education Society, Buldhana, ... vs Sau. Madhuri Purushottam Kulkarni And ... on 17 April, 2017
Author: R.K. Deshpande
Bench: R.K. Deshpande
1
wp6050.15.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Writ Petition No.6050 of 2015
1. Buldhana Education Society,
Buldhana, Tq. & Distt. Buldhana,
through its President.
2. Aided High School & Higher
Secondary Vidyalaya, Buldhana,
Tq. & Distt. Buldhana, through its
Headmaster Rajendra s/o Onkar
Patil.
3. Rajendra s/o Onkar Patil,
Aged about 51 years,
Occupation - Service,
R/o Shikshak Colony,
Buldhana, Tq. & Distt. Buldhana. ... Petitioners
Versus
1. Sau. Madhuri Purushottam Kulkarni,
Aged about 54 years,
Occupation - Service,
R/o Chopara Layout,
Near Bus Stand, Buldhana,
Tq. & Distt. Buldhana.
2. Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Buldhana,
Tq. & Distt. Buldhana. ... Respondents
::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2017 01:03:45 :::
2
wp6050.15.odt
Shri R.L. Khapre, Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri Ketan Bhoskar, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Shri S.B. Bissa, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent
No.2.
Shri R.V. Shiralkar, Advocate for Intervenor.
Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J.
th Dated : 17 April, 2017 Oral Judgment :
1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties.
2. The first question involved before the School Tribunal was regarding supersession in the matter of promotion to the post of Head Master/Head Mistress of Junior College, and the second question was regarding cancellation of the promotion of the respondent No.1 to the said post. The School Tribunal has set aside the promotion of the petitioner No.3 to the post of Head Master of Junior College after holding that the cancellation of the promotion of the respondent No.1 was not proper. ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2017 01:03:45 ::: 3
wp6050.15.odt
3. The promotion of the respondent No.1 to the post of Incharge Head Mistress by itself does not confer upon her any right to hold the post. The promotion as Incharge Head Mistress can always be cancelled at any point of time. Hence, the School Tribunal has committed an error in holding that the cancellation of the promotion of the respondent No.1 was not proper. The question of eligibility and qualifications of the respondent No.1 for promotion to the post of Head Mistress is required to be gone into by the School Tribunal, as it has been raised for the first time before this Court, so as to consider the case of supersession in the matter of promotion. The matter is, therefore, required to be remanded back to the School Tribunal for consideration of the rival claims afresh by permitting the parties to suitably amend their pleadings.
4. In the result, the petition is allowed. The judgment and order dated 3-10-2015 passed by the School Tribunal, Amravati, in Appeal No.02 of 2015, is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the School Tribunal to decide the ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2017 01:03:45 ::: 4 wp6050.15.odt question of supersession of the claim of the petitioner No.3 for promotion to the post of Head Master of Junior College on the basis of qualifications, seniority and fitness or merit, as per the rules. The parties to appear before the School Tribunal on 19-6-2017. No fresh notices shall be issued to the parties.
The application for intervention filed before this Court can be considered by the School Tribunal, which shall also consider the clubbing of the matters together for hearing, if there are different appeals claiming promotion to the said post.
5. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs.
Judge Lanjewar ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2017 01:03:45 :::