S.M. Modak, J.

1. The issue involved in this petition is whether the directions contained in a Government Resolution (for short ‘G.R.’) would prevail over the provisions of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (for short ‘MEPS Rules’). It pertains to the issue of appointment on the post of Headmaster in a private school. On one hand, there are provisions of sub-rule 10 of Rule 9 of MEPS Rules which prescribe 33% reservation of the total number of posts of the Heads and Assistant Heads. On the other hand, there are Government Circulars dated 26th September 2017 and Government Resolution dated 29th May 2017. The Government Resolution dated 29th May 2017 prescribes the procedure for filling up the posts of Headmaster by considering the roster position, whereas, as per the Government Circular dated 29th July 2017 there are directions to verify the roster and thereafter make the appointment of Headmaster and Assistant Headmaster.

2. This issue cropped up when Petitioner No.2 – Santsha appointed Petitioner No.1 to the post of Headmistress vide Resolution dated 11th June 2017 with effect from 1st July 2017. The existing Headmaster was due to retire on account of superannuation on 30 June 2017. Petitioner No.2 submitted the proposal for approval to Respondent No.2-Education Officer, Raigad vide letter dated 23rd September 2017. Respondent No.3 is another Assistant teacher working in the D.G. Tatkare, Vijroli secondary school and belongs to a reserved category, contends that a teacher belonging to the Scheduled Caste category ought to have been promoted to the post of Headmaster as per the roster. He has raised an objection to the Education Officer vide letters dated 23rd October 2017, 13th November 2017 and 16th November 2017.

3. The Education officer (Secondary) conducted a hearing on 24th August 2018 and passed the order dated 27th August 2018 and refused to give approval to the proposal of Petitioner No.1 for the reason that the roster point has not yet been ascertained by Petitioner No.2-Sanstha from 16th February 2004. There is a challenge to this order by both the Petitioners.

4. We have heard Mr. Vinayak Kumbhar, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. Akhil Kupade, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.3 and Mr. Walimbe, the learned AGP appearing fo the State.

5. Our attention is invited to the relevant correspondence and the contents of the affidavit-in-reply. The learned AGP has supported the impugned order and placed reliance on various Government Resolutions and Government Circulars. We have also gone through the rejoinder affidavit.

6. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner relied upon the observations in the case of Smt. Swati Ravindra Walawalkar v/s. The State of Maharashtra and others in WP No.10841/2017 decided on 14th February 2018 (A.K. Menon, J). For ready reference sub-rule (10) of Rule-9 of the said Rules is quoted:

                   “10. (a) The Management shall reserve 33 per cent of the total number of posts (or vacancies) of Heads and Assistant Heads for the members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Castes converts to Buddhism, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes and Special Backward Category as follows, namely: