ASHOK NAMAJI SAHARE Vs. EDUCATION OFFICER (SECONDARY)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Shambharkar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Hiwase, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No. 1. Nobody appears for other respondents.

(2.) Shri. Shambharkar, learned counsel submits that the petitioner claims promotion as Junior Clerk in view of provisions of Part 3 of Schedule "F" of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, (hereinafter referred to as MEPS Rules, 1981). He contends that one post of Junior Clerk became vacant and as the petitioner was senior-most candidate, who had improved his educational qualification and was eligible for it, he needed to be given that post. He points out that this Court on 04/01/2005 directed the parties to maintain status quo. Though respondent No. 5 was selected and appointed as direct recruit on that post, respondent No. 5 did not report for duty and post is lying vacant since last about 10-11 years. He points out that the petitioner has hardly one year of service left before his superannuation. He is relying upon Division Bench judgment in the case of Ramesh Shivram Khairnar v. State of Maharashtra and others, 2003 4 MhLJ 470, particularly paragraphs 11 and 12.

(3.) Smt. Hiwase, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1, is opposing the petition. She submits that as the Management had two Schools and two posts of Junior Clerk, the roster applies and as per that roster, one post of Junior Clerk is reserved for backward class, i.e. Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner does not belong to Scheduled Tribe and hence, post was rightly advertised. She further states that if respondent No. 5 has abandoned employment, Management cannot keep the post vacant for such a long time and somebody else must be working. She, therefore, prays for dismissal of the petition. In the alternative, she has also sought adjournment to obtain instructions about alleged abandonment of employment by respondent No. 5.