MOHAN BAPURAO SHINDE Vs. TERANA CHARITABLE TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. By consent of the parties, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.

(2.) The present petition has been filed against the order of the School Tribunal dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner.

(3.) The facts in the present case are not in dispute. Respondent No. 1 is a charitable trust which is running various schools. It established its first school in Nerul in June 1990. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 30-6-1990 in the school. Respondent No. 1 then established new schools in Osmanabad, Ter and Aurangabad in 2002, 2003. Thereafter, another school was established in Koparkhairane in 2003-2004. Headmasters were appointed in the various schools after advertising for the posts. In 2003-04, the petitioner contends he orally represented to respondent Nos. 1 and 3 that he should be appointed as the headmaster in the school at Koparkhairane which had just been established. Respondent No. 4 was initially appointed as the Incharge Headmistress in 2003-2004. On 8-12-2006, the petitioner raised an objection to her appointment before the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Thane. He thereafter raised an objection to her appointment before the Administrative Officer and later sent a reminder to the Officer of the Deputy Director of Education on 2-7-2007. It appears there was some correspondence exchanged between respondent No. 3 and the petitioner in July, 2007. The petitioner again requested respondent No. 5 in July, 2007 that he be promoted as Headmaster in Koparkhairane school. On 5-12-2007, respondent No. 5 i.e. the Education Officer informed him that the post was filled after selecting a suitable candidate who applied in response to the advertisement published for the post. Respondent No. 5 also informed the petitioner that the appointment had been approved by an order dated 10-2-2006 w.e.f. 1-8-2003. Not being satisfied with this letter, the petitioner submitted a representation to respondent No. 5 on 24-12-2007 which went unheeded. The petitioner therefore preferred an appeal before the School Tribunal challenging the appointment of respondent No. 4 by claiming that he was superseded by her.