Petitioner sought promotion to Headmistress as a senior teacher. Court dismissed writ petition, holding that participating in the selection process precludes challenging the advertisement or appointments.
Petitioner's claim for promotion on post of Principal/Headmistress was dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
YBG
1
wp262-15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.262 OF 2015
Usha Parmar .. Petitioner
The Chairman/ President New Sarvajanik Education Society & Ors. .. Respondents
Mr.V.S.Deokar for petitioner Mr.S.K.More for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Mrs.Anjali Helekar, AGP for respondent Nos. 3 and 4
CORAM : SMT. V.A.NAIK & C.V.BHADANG, JJ. DATE : 27th February 2015.
P.C.
By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent No.1 to promote the petitioner on the post of Principal.
The petitioner claims to be the senior most teacher in the
school and, therefore, claims promotion on the post of Headmistress as there is vacancy in that post.
YBG
2
wp262-15
The learned Counsel for the management states that the petitioner cannot be promoted to the post of Headmistress as the respondent school is granted a minority status and the post of Headmistress is one of the three posts that are notified as per section 3(3) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service Regulation) Act. It is further stated that the petitioner cannot file the writ petition after participating in the selection process by appearing at the written examination conducted in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the Management.
On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, it appears that the petitioner cannot effectively challenge the advertisement and the selection process after participating in the same. If the petitioner desired to plead that the management could not have advertised the post of Headmistress as she was entitled to be promoted on that post, the petitioner ought not have participated in the selection process initiated in pursuance of the advertisement. It would be worthwhile to refer to the judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2009) 3 SCC 227 (Amlan Jyoti Borooh
YBG
3
wp262-15
Vs. State of Assam & Ors.) and (2011) 1 SCC 150 (Vijender Kumar Verma Vs. Public Service Commission, Uttarakhand & Ors.) in this regard.
For the reasons aforesaid, we dismiss the petition with
no orders as to costs.
( C.V.BHADANG, J) ( SMT. V.A.NAIK, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a petitioner who voluntarily participated in a selection process can challenge the advertisement on grounds of entitlement to direct promotion.
Whether minority status of the school negates the right to promotion to posts notified under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Amlan Jyoti Borooh Vs. State of Assam & Ors.Referred¶19
(2009) 3 SCC 227 · Who else cites this
Vijender Kumar Verma Vs. Public Service Commission, Uttarakhand & Ors.Referred¶23
(2011) 1 SCC 150 · Who else cites this
Usha Parmar
The Chairman/ President New Sarvajanik Education Society
V.A. Naik
C.V. Bhadang
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
