RASHMI BADAM KASARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:5685-DB

                                                                        243-26-WP (RF).odt
                                               {1}

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                WRIT PETITION NO. 243 OF 2026

              Smt. Rashmi Wd/o. Badam Kasar,
              Age: 53 years, Occu.: Service,
              R/o. Newasa Road, Kasar Vasti,
              Near Engineering College,
              Wadala Mahadeo, Shrirampur,
              District : Ahilyanagar.                           … Petitioenr

                    Versus
              1. The State of Maharashtra
                 Through its Secretary,
                 School Education and Sports
                 Department, Madam Cama Road,
                 Hutatma Rajguru Chowk, Mantralaya,
                 Mumbai – 400032.

              2. The Education Officer (Secondary)
                 Zilla Parishad, Ahilyanagar,
                 Taluka & District: Ahilyanagar.

              3. Hind Seva Mandal,
                 Through its Secretary,
                 Sarda College Ground,
                 In front of Civil Hospital,
                 Borkar Nagar, Ahilyanagar.

              4. B.R. Khatod Girl’s School,
                 Through its Headmaster,
                 Shrirampur, Taluka Shrirampur,
                 District: Ahilyanagar.                         … Respondents

                                                 ......
              Mr. R.A. Joshi, Advocate for the Petitioner
              Mr. V.M. Kagne, AGP for Respondents Nos.1 and 2
                                                 ......

                                       CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND
                                               HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.
                                       DATED : 02 FEBRUARY, 2026
                                                          243-26-WP (RF).odt
                                 {2}


JUDGMENT [Per Hiten S. Venegavkar, J.] :-

1.     Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the

parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of

admission.


2.     The petitioner is employed as an Assistant Teacher in respondent

no.4 school, run by respondent No.3-Management, namely Hind Seva

Mandal. The petition is instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India, assailing the communication/order dated 15.11.2025 issued by

the Management, whereby the petitioner, who was made to work as

Assistant Head with effect from 01.01.2025, has been reverted to the

post of Assistant Teacher with effect from 16.11.2025.


3.     The prayers, as placed before us, are essentially (i) to set aside

the Management’s order dated 15.11.2025; (ii) to declare that the

petitioner is entitled to work as Assistant Head in respondent No.4

school; and (iii) to direct respondent No.4 to forward the proposal for

approval of the petitioner’s appointment/promotion as Assistant Head

to respondent No.2, the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad

Ahilyanagar.


4.       The factual matrix, in brief, is thus: the petitioner was

appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the year 1992. Her appointment
                                                        243-26-WP (RF).odt
                                {3}

came to be approved on 15.01.1994 by the Education Officer, and after

completion of probation she was made permanent by the management.

While in service, the petitioner acquired additional qualifications

(including graduation, B.Ed., and post-graduate qualifications). The

petitioner asserts that she ought to have been granted the B.Ed. pay

scale earlier than November 2009; she further states that sanction for

higher pay scale/steps was accorded in 2019.


5.     The petitioner then relies upon the State’s guidelines dated

24.03.2023 concerning fixation of seniority of teachers in secondary

schools under Rule 12 read with Schedule “F” of the Maharashtra

Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981

(“MEPS Rules”). The petitioner states that she was promoted as

Supervisor by the management on 30.07.2024, and was thereafter

promoted/appointed as Assistant Head by order dated 30.12.2024.

According to the petitioner, though she joined as Assistant Head on

01.01.2025, the proposal for approval was not forwarded to the

Education Officer.


6.     It is further the petitioner’s case that in November 2025 she

proceeded on medical leave on account of her son’s medical needs.

While on such leave, she received the impugned communication dated

15.11.2025 reverting her to the post of Assistant Teacher with effect
                                                                     243-26-WP (RF).odt
                                       {4}

from 16.11.2025. The impugned communication refers to (i) a circular

dated 28.01.2025 issued by the State; (ii) a communication dated

03.02.2025 issued by the Education Officer; and (iii) decisions of this

Court   dated     11.02.2025       and       03.03.2025     (as   stated     in      the

communication). The petitioner contends that the impugned order is

vague, ex parte, and unsustainable.


7.      Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant

Government Pleader for respondent nos.1 and 2.


8.      At the hearing, the learned AGP raised a preliminary objection to

the maintainability of the petition. It is submitted that the impugned

order effects a “reduction in rank” of the petitioner, and therefore an

efficacious statutory remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner

under Section 9(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools

(Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (“MEPS Act”). Learned

AGP places reliance on Section 9 of the MEPS Act, which reads thus:

        “Section 9. Right of appeal to Tribunal to employees of private schools. -
        (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law or contract for the
        time being in force, any employee in a private school-

            (a) who is dismissed or removed or whose services are otherwise
            terminated or who is reduced in rank, by the order passed by the
            management; or

            (b) who is superseded by the Management while making an
            appointment to any post by promotion; and who is aggrieved,
            shall have a right of appeal and may appeal against any such
            order or supersession to the Tribunal constituted under section 8:
                                                                       243-26-WP (RF).odt
                                       {5}


            Provided that, no such appeal shall lie to the Tribunal in any case
            where the matter has already been decided by a Court of
            competent jurisdiction or is pending before such Court, on the
            appointed date or where the order of dismissal, removal,
            otherwise termination of service or reduction in rank was passed
            by the Management at any time before the 1st July 1976.

       (2) Such appeal shall be made by the employee to the Tribunal, within
       thirty days from the date of receipt by him of the order of dismissal,
       removal, otherwise termination of service or reduction in rank, as the
       case may be:

       Provided that, where such order was made before the appointed date,
       such appeal may be made within sixty days from the said date.

       (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), the Tribunal
       may, entertain an appeal made to it after the expiry of the said period of
       thirty or sixty days, as the case may be, if it is satisfied that the appellant
       has sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within that period.

       (4) Every appeal shall be accompanied by a fee of five hundred rupees,
       which shall not be refunded and shall be credited to the Consolidated

       Fund of the State.”


       It is, therefore, urged that in view of the availability of an

alternative and efficacious statutory remedy, this Court ought not to

entertain the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.


9.     Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

impugned communication is issued by the management and not by the

Education Officer. It is argued that the petitioner is not reduced in rank

by way of punishment; rather, the impugned action is the outcome of

the management’s failure to prepare/maintain a seniority list in
                                                                        243-26-WP (RF).odt
                                         {6}

accordance with Rule 12 read with Schedule “F”, and the controversy, in

substance, pertains to inter se seniority. Learned counsel places reliance

on Rule 12 of the MEPS Act, which reads thus:

      “Rule 12. Seniority List
      (1) Every Management shall prepare and maintain seniority list of the
      teaching staff including Head Master and Assistant Head Master and non
      teaching staff in the school in accordance with the guidelines laid down
      in schedule ‘F’. The seniority list so prepared shall be circulated amongst
      the members of the staff concerned and their signatures for having
      received a copy of the list shall be obtained. Any subsequent change
      made in the seniority list from time to time shall also be brought to the
      notice of the members of the staff concerned and their signatures for
      having noted the change shall be obtained.

      (2) Objections, if any, to the seniority list or the changes therein shall be
      duly taken into consideration by the Management.

      (3) Disputes, if any, in the matter of inter se seniority shall be referred to

      the Education Officer for his decision.”


         It is further urged that the decision is taken without affording

opportunity, and therefore the writ petition should be entertained

despite the existence of a statutory remedy.


10.      In view of the rival submissions, we consider it appropriate to

determine, as a threshold issue, whether the writ petition should be

entertained in the face of the alternate statutory remedy under the

MEPS Act.
                                                               243-26-WP (RF).odt
                                  {7}

11.    Section 9 of the MEPS Act confers a right of appeal to the School

Tribunal. The provision opens with a non obstante clause and expressly

provides a right of appeal, inter alia, where an employee “is reduced in

rank” by an order passed by the management, and also where an

employee is “superseded” in promotion.


12.    Rule 12 of the MEPS Rules, which deals with seniority, obliges

the management to prepare and maintain the seniority list and to

circulate it; it further contemplates objections to such list being raised

before the management, and provides that disputes of inter se seniority

are to be referred to the Education Officer for decision.


13.    The interplay between Section 9 and Rule 12 has been

authoritatively considered by a Full Bench of this Court in Namdeo

Vishnu Sase v. State of Maharashtra , 2023 (2) MhLJ 598. The Full

Bench, after considering earlier decisions, clarified that Rule 12

prescribes the procedure for objections and reference to the Education

Officer, but where consequential action is taken by the management

that amounts to a “reduction in rank” or “supersession” (i.e., action

falling within Section 9(1)(a) or 9(1)(b)), the remedy is an appeal

under Section 9, and the Tribunal can examine the correctness of

seniority-related   determinations      as   an   incidental    issue    while

adjudicating the legality of the management’s action.
                                                          243-26-WP (RF).odt
                                 {8}


14.     The Full Bench also explained that there may be circumstances

where no appeal lies (for instance, where a decision on seniority does

not culminate in a Section 9-type consequential action), and in such

cases, a person may be “remedy-less” unless recourse is taken in

accordance with law. However, once the management’s action squarely

falls within Section 9(1)(a) or (b), the statutory appeal is the

designated remedy.


15.     Applying the aforesaid legal position to the present facts, the

impugned communication dated 15.11.2025, on its plain terms and

effect, reverts the petitioner from the post of Assistant Head (which the

petitioner claims to have been discharging since 01.01.2025) to the post

of Assistant Teacher with effect from 16.11.2025. Such reversion is, in

substance and effect, a reduction in rank. It therefore falls within the

express field of Section 9(1)(a) of the MEPS Act, which provides an

appeal against an order of the management reducing an employee in

rank.


16.     The petitioner seeks to characterise the controversy as one of

seniority and the management’s failure to maintain a seniority list. Even

if that be so, it does not alter the essential nature of the impugned

order, namely, reversion/reduction in rank by the management. The Full
                                                          243-26-WP (RF).odt
                                 {9}

Bench has made it clear that where the management’s consequential

action is challengeable under Section 9, the Tribunal may adjudicate the

seniority issues as incidental questions while deciding the lawfulness of

the management’s action.


17.    We also note that in the present writ petition, the substantive

challenge and reliefs are directed against the management’s order dated

15.11.2025. The petition does not primarily seek a mandamus to

compel preparation/circulation of a seniority list or to enforce the

procedural steps under Rule 12 as an independent relief. The gravamen

remains the reversion order, i.e., reduction in rank, for which the

legislature has provided a specialised appellate forum with powers to

grant appropriate relief.


18.    Learned counsel for the petitioner also invoked the alleged

breach of natural justice. The existence of an alternate remedy is not an

absolute bar, and constitutional courts do entertain writ petitions in

exceptional contingencies, including where there is a failure of natural

justice or where proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction. However,

those principles cannot be applied mechanically to bypass a specialised

statutory mechanism, particularly where the grievance is against an

order expressly made appealable and where the appellate forum is

empowered to examine legality, propriety, and compliance with rules
                                                           243-26-WP (RF).odt
                                      {10}

and conditions of service. The School Tribunal under Section 9, read

with Section 11, is not a hollow remedy; it is designed precisely to

adjudicate disputes concerning reduction in rank and allied service

consequences, and to mould the relief.


19.     In the present case, the petitioner’s complaint that the decision

was ex parte, that the basis cited is vague, and that seniority rules were

not followed, are all matters which can be urged effectively before the

School Tribunal in an appeal under Section 9. The Tribunal can consider

the legality of the reversion, the procedural fairness, and (where

necessary) the seniority dimensions as incidental issues in the context of

the management’s action.


20.     The reliance placed by the petitioner on the Full Bench decision

dated 03.03.2023 is misconceived. Properly read, it supports the

preliminary objection. The Full Bench expressly recognises that when

the impugned consequence is reduction in rank or supersession, the

statutory appeal under Section 9 is the remedy, and the Tribunal can go

into seniority issues incidentally.


21.     For these reasons, we uphold the preliminary objection. The

petition is not entertained on the ground that an effective and

efficacious alternative remedy, by way of a statutory appeal under
                                                               243-26-WP (RF).odt
                                     {11}

Section 9 of the MEPS Act, is available against the impugned order of

reduction in rank.


22.        The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.


23         The petitioner is at liberty to prefer an appeal before the School

Tribunal under Section 9 of the MEPS Act. Considering that the

petitioner has pursued the remedy before this Court, it is clarified that if

such appeal is filed within three weeks from today, the Tribunal shall

consider the question of limitation liberally, keeping in view the

pendency of the present petition.




[ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ]                       [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ]
             JUDGE                                       JUDGE




S P Rane