The petitioner challenges the revocation of his promotion to Head Master by the Deputy Director of Education, confirmed on 04.03.2020, arguing it was improperly revoked despite written consent from the senior-most teacher (Respondent No. 6). The court examined the adherence to statutory procedures under Rule 3(3) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Services) Regulation Act, 1977 & Rules, 1981. The court found significant procedural violations, particularly the lack of proper relinquishment by Respondent No. 6. The petition was dismissed, confirming the revocation was justified.

1. Introduction

The petitioner challenges the order revoking his promotion to Head Master, initially approved on 23.07.2019.

2. Background

• Petitioner and Respondents No. 5 and 6 are employees of Respondent No. 4.
• Respondent No. 6 was the senior-most teacher; petitioner was second in seniority.
• Vacancy arose on 31.05.2019 due to the retirement of the previous Head Master.
• Petitioner was promoted on 02.06.2019 with approval on 23.07.2019.

3. Petitioner's Argument

• Respondent No. 6 gave written consent for the petitioner’s promotion on 23.07.2019.
• Revocation of approval by Respondent No. 5 was without jurisdiction and amounted to an improper review.
• No statutory procedure was followed for revocation.

4. Respondent No. 6’s Argument

• As the senior-most teacher, Respondent No. 6 never relinquished his claim voluntarily.
• Complaints were made about coercion for obtaining consent.
• The promotion procedure violated Rule 3(3).

5. Legal Analysis

• Rule 3(3) requires a specific procedure for filling the Head Master post, including voluntary relinquishment in the senior-most teacher’s handwriting.
• Petitioner's promotion on 02.06.2019 did not follow proper procedure.

6. Court's Findings

• The consent of Respondent No. 6 was not voluntary and not in his handwriting.
• The statutory procedure under Rule 3(3) was not followed.
• The revocation of the petitioner’s promotion was justified due to procedural violations.

7. Conclusion

• The petition was dismissed.
• The court upheld the revocation of the petitioner’s promotion to Head Master.

8. Order

• The writ petition is dismissed.
• Rule is discharged.
• No order as to costs.