PRAMODversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA& ORS.

                    [2015] 15 S.C.R. 131


                          PRAM OD                                   A
                               v.
            STATE OF MAHARASHTRA& ORS.
              (Civil Appeal No. 14735 of 2015)
                                                                    B
                    DECEMBER 29, 2015
    [VIKRAMAJIT SEN AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.]
      Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Condition
of Service) Rules, 1981: r.3- Promotion- Post of Principal-
Appellant-writ petitioner senior most lecturer - Post of            C
Principal fell vacant - Another person appointed - Writ
petition - Pending that advertisement issued invjting
applications for direct recruitment to the post of Principal -
Plea of appellant that post of Principal in a private polytechnic
has to be filled up necessarily by promotion by virtue of r. 3 -    D
High Court disposed of writ petition by holding that appellant
was entitled to all benefit as officiating Principal but did not
enter into the controversy as to who should be selected and
appointed as regular Principal - Appellant filed another writ
petition claiming promotion to the post of Principal ulr. 3(3) -    E
High Court disposed of writ petition allowing the Education
Society running the polytechnic to approach the Director of
Technical Education for permission to issue fresh
advertisement - Director rejected the appellant's prayer
holding that post is to be filled up by direct recruitment - Writ   F
petition by appellant for quashing Director's order and
directions to the concerned authorities to promote him- High
Court decided against the appellant- On appeal, held: Sub-
rule (5) of r.3 permits direct recruitment only after obtaining
prior permission of the competent Government Officer in a           G
situation where no suitable teacher possessing the prescribed
qualifications is available for promotion as Head - Mode
of appointment prescribed under the statutory r.3(3) could
not have been ignored and since the appellant was
admittedly the senior most member of the teaching staff             H
                              131
132       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2015] 15 S.C.R.

A and in the earlier judgment was also held entitled to all the
  benefits of In-charge Principal of the polytechnic, he could
  not have been denied appointment by promotion to the vacant
  post of Principal - As regard the age of superannuation,
  even as a teacher the appellant's age of superannuation
B could have been considered for extension upto 62 years if
  steps were taken for the same in due course -Appellant was
  not promoted due to erroneous order of Director otherwise
  he would not have superannuated before 65 years or in any
  case 62 years- Therefore, in the interest ofjustice, authorities
c are directed to immediately reinstate the appellant and also
  appoint him by promotion to the post of Principal -
  Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Condition of
  Service) Regulation Act, 1977-All India Council for Technical
  Education Act, 1987 - s. 23 r/w s. 1O(i) and (v) - Education.
 D       Allowing the appeal, the Court
         HELD: 1. The Principal, Head of Department,
    Lecturer and Workshop Superintendent in Government
    Polytechnic and Equivalent Institutes (Recruitment)
 E Rules, 2012 will not apply to private aided polytechnic
    such as the respondent's polytechnic. As a result, there
    is no other Statutory Act or Rule to take away the force
    of Rule 3(3) of the MEPS Rules which requires the
    management of the polytechnic, which is covered by
 F the definition of the 'School' under the MEPS Act, to fill
    up the post of the Head of Institution, i.e., the Principal
    by appointing the senior most member of the teaching
    staff in accordance with the guidelines laid down in
  . Schedule 'F' from amongst the teachers employed in
    the school. The respondent-polytechnic is the only
 G polytechnic run by the Management. Schedule 'F' to the
    Rules prescribes only the guidelines for fixation of
    seniority in different schools. The appellant is senior
    most teacher in the polytechnic. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 3
 H permits direct recruitment only after obtaining prior
     PRAM OD v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.                    133


permission of the competent Government Officer in a A
situation where no suitable teacher possessing the
prescribed qualifications is available for promotion as
Head. [Para 12] [142-B·E]
      2. The High Court has erred in law in holding that
the mode of appointment by promotion under Rule 3(3)           B
of the MEPS Rules cannot be applied to a polytechnic
although it is a school because there is no separate
qualification prescribed for a polytechnic in sub-rule(1)
of Rule 3. The said sub-rule contains the qualifications
and appointment of Head not only for primary schools           C
but also for secondary school including night school or
a junior college of education. Appellant fulfills those
qualifications. Further it is nobody's case that the
appellant does not fulfill the educational qualification for
the post of Principal of a polytechnic even as prescribed      D
by the AICTE. In such a situation the mode of
appointment prescribed under the statutory Rule 3(3)
could not have been ignored and since the appellant was
admittedly the senior most member of the teaching staff
in the polytechnic at the relevant time, as also held in       E
the earlier judgment of the High Court when he was
declared entitled to all the benefits of In-charge Principal
of the polytechnic since 9.7.2007, the appellant could not
have been denied appointment by promotion to the
vacant post of Principal. [Para 13] [142-F-H; 143-A·D]         F
     3. On the issue of age of superannuation, there was
no occasion for the High Court to consider the relevant
Rules or Notifications and before this Court, there is a
serious controversy as to whether the age of
superannuation on the post of a teacher other than G
Principal ought to be 60, 62 or 65 years. According to
respondent, the State Government had issued a
Notification through the Higher and Technical Education
Department dated 5th March, 2010 whereby the age of
                                                               H
134        SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2015] 15 S.C.R.


A     superannuation for non-government polytechnic
      institutions has been increased from 58 years to 60 years
      and it can be extended upto 62 years only after obtaining
      prior approval of the State Government. Similarly, for
      the post of Principal the age of superannuation has been
B     increased to 65 years but with the rider that State
      Government should grant approval for any further
      extension beyond 62 years. On the other hand, the
      stand of the appellant is that he has been arbitrarily
      ignored and not considered for extension because of
c     pending litigation against the Management of the
      respondent-society since several years. From the
      materials, it is evident that even as a teacher the
      appellant's age of superannuation could have been
      considered for extension upto 62 years if steps had been
o     taken for the same in due course. Moreover, the
      Regulations of AICTE being statutory, unless these
      have been superseded or annulled by a competent
      authority, the appellant's age of superannuation stood
      extended upto 65 years. Lastly and in any event, this
 E    Court had directed for maintenance of status-quo in
      respect of appellant's service and such order has been
      ignored by the concerned respondents by proceeding
      to superannuate the appellant at the age of 60 years.
      Yet another dimension requires special consideration
 F    in the interest of justice. As per the statutory MEPS
      Rules, the appellant should have been promoted as
      the Head of the School or in other words Principal of
      the polytechnic long back and in any case by the end of
      the year 2012, provided the respondent-Director had not
 G    passed an illegal and erroneous order when he wrongly
      proceeded to apply the Government Rules 2012 to the
      private respondent polytechnic. If a correct view had
      been taken by the respondent-Director then by the end
      of 2012, the appellant would have been occupying the
 H    post of Principal in the respondent polytechnic and then
      PRAMOD v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA& ORS.                      135


  he would not have superannuated before 65 years or            A
  in any case before 62 years of age. In the interest of
  justice, it is deemed. proper to direct for immediate
  reinstatement of the appellant within two weeks. The
  Management of the Respondent Society cannot be
_ presumed to be just and fair to the appellant and             B
  expected to act in accordance with law. Hence, instead
  of relegating the appellant to the mercy of the
  Management, the concerned respondents are directed
  to issue order of reinstatement and also appointment of
  the appellant by promotion to the post of Principal of        c
  the respondent polytechnic within four weeks. The
  appellant shall be treated to have been appointed by
  such promotion to the post of Principal w.e.f. 1st
  December, 2012 as this in normal course should have
  been the time taken for such promotion if the                 D
  respondent-Director had not passed a wrong order. The
  appellant shall also be entitled to all consequential
  benefits on the basis of such promotion. Since the
  appellant's service was disturbed by superannuating
  him w.e.f. 31.3.2015 contrary to interim order, he shall be   E
  deemed to have continued in service without interruption
  even after 31.3.2015 with entitlement to full salary and
  other permissible emoluments for the entire period till
  reinstatement. [Paras 15to 18) [143-F-H; 144-A, E-H; 145-
  A-H; 146-A]                                                   F
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
 No. 14735 of2015.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 10.10.2014 of the
 High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur G
 in Writ Petition No. 652 of 2013.
       ChanderUday Singh, Sr.Adv., Manish Pitale, S. J. Kadu,
 C. S. Ashri, Satyajit A. Qesai, Ms. Anagha S. Desai, Advs.
 for the Appellant.
                                                                H
136        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015] 15S.C.R.


A         Tushar Mehta, ASG, Mahaling Pandarge,Addl. Govt. Adv.,
      Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Adv. for the
      Respondents.
           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B          SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. 1. Leave granted.
        2. This appeal raises a question of law as to whether as
  a senior most lecturer in a private Polytechnic Institution
  administered by Shri Shiva Ji Education Society-Respondent
  No.4, the appellant is entitled to be considered for appointment
C to the post of Principal because it is required to be made only
  by promotion by virtue of Rule 3 of the Maharashtra Employees
  of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (for
  brevity the 'MEPS Rules') framed under the Maharashtra
  Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service)
D Regulation Act, 1977 (for brevity the 'MEPS Act').
          3. Although the seniority, qualification and eligibility of
   the appellant for appointment to the post of Principal was not
   under question before the Division Bench of the High Court,
   before us an attempt was made not only to oppose the
 E appellant's claim on the basis of impugned judgment under
   appeal which holds that under the law appointment is not
   necessarily by promotion alone, it can be also by nomination,
   i.e., direct recruitment, but also to contest the claim of the
   appellant on the ground of qualification as well as his age. The
 F issue of age has arisen due to subsequent development. On
   account of passage of time, when this matter was already
   pending before this Court, the appellant completed 60 years
   and was made to superannuate on 31.3.2015. Since there
   was an order of status quo in appellant's favour, contempt
 G petition was also filed but instead of pressing the same,
   Mr. C.U. Singh, learned senior counsel for the appellant has
   preferred to argue the main matter itself. Before answering
   the question of law, noticed earlier, the relevant facts may be
   noted in brief.
 H
     PRAMOD v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA& ORS.                            137
               [SHIVAKIRTI SINGH, J.]

       4. The appellant was appointed to the post of Assistant       A
Lecturer in Civil Engineering Department of Dr. Punjabrao
Deshmukh Polytechnic, Amravati administered by the
Respondent- Shivaji Education Society on 30th July, 1977. His
service was approved w.e.f. 1.7.1979. The appellant holds
qualifications of Bachelor of Engineering (Civil) in first class     B
and Master of Engineering (Structure) also in first class. On
1.4.1993 the appellant was appointed as lecturer (Selection
Grade). His seniority is duly shown in the seniority list issued
on 1. 7 .1997 by the office of the Principal of Polytechnic. The
appellant worked as Project Officer between 4.2.2000 and             C
30.7.2007. This post is said to be equivalent to the post of
Head of Department. The appellant also worked as In-charge
Head of Department of Civil Engineering from 8.8.2005 to
13.2.2008 to which he was selected and appointed on regular
basis also. In the meantime on 5. 7 .2007 the post of Principal      D
fell vacant due to voluntary retirement of the then Principal. The
appellant claimed that he should be.given the charge of that
post on the basis of his seniority but another person was
appointed as officiating Principal on 9. 7 .2007. The appellant
challenged such action by preferring a writ petition No.3230         E
of 2007 in 2007. That writ petition was dismissed on the
ground that the appellant had alternative remedy of appeal
under Section 9 of the MEPS Act before the School Tribunal.
The appellant thereafter, preferred appeal No. 39 of 2007
before the Tribunal which dismissed the appeal as pre-mature         F
on 11.10.2007. Against the said order of School Tribunal, the
appellant preferred another writ petition bearing No. 57 48 of
2007.
      5. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the
society issued an advertisement inviting applications for direct G
appointment to the post of Principal. The appellant challenged
that advertisement dated 21.11.2007 and prayed for a direction
to the society to appoint him as Principal by granting
promotion. The High Court restrained issuance of final
appointment order and ultimately disposed of the writ petition H
138         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2015] 15S.C.R.


A on 15.9.2009 by holding in favour of the appellant that he was
  entitled to all the benefits as officiating Principal from 9.7.2007
  but did not enter into the controversy as to who should be
  selected and appointed as regular Principal. Since that issue
  was left open, the appellant preferred another writ petition No.
B 4235 of 2009 claiming that he was entitled to be promoted to
  the post of Principal under Rule 3(3) of the MEPS Rules on
  account of being the senior most lecturer of the polytechnic.
            6. On 5.3.2010, the All India Council for Technical
      Education (for brevity 'AICTE') issued a notification framing
C     the All India Council for Technical Education [Pay-scales,
      Service Conditions, and Qualifications of the Teachers and
      other Academic Staffs in Technical Institutions (Diploma)]
      Regulations 2010. The writ petition was disposed of on
      29.7.2010. The High Court allowed the Society to approach
D     the Director of Technical Education for permission to issue
      fresh advertisement and left it open to the appellant to make a
      representation to the Director for staking his claim of promotion
      to the post of Principal and to raise the issue that no
      advertisement was required in view of the MEPS Rules and
E     the particular facts. The Director was given six weeks time to
      consider the application of the Society and also the
      representation of the appellant and in the meanwhile the
      appellant was to continue as In-charge Principal. For one
      reason or the other the matter remained with the respondent-
 F    Director and in the meantime on 10.9.2012 the State of
      Maharashtra through the Department of Higher and Technical
      Education notified Rules entitled- The Principal, Head of
      Department, Lecturer and Workshop Superintendent in
      Government Polytechnic and Equivalent Institutes
G     (Recruitment) Rules 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
      Government Rules 2012).
       7. The Director-Respondent No.2 by his order dated
  17.10.2012 placed reliance on the Government Rules 2012
H and rejected the appellant's prayer by holding that the post of
     PRAMOD v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA& ORS.                         139
               [SHIVAKIRTI SINGH, J.]

Principal had to be filled up by nomination, i.e., direct A
recruitment. The appellant preferred writ petition No. 652 of
2013 for quashing of Director's order and for directions to the
concerned authorities to promote the appellant to the post of
Principal with all benefits. The writ petition was dismissed on
10.10.2014 giving rise to the Special Leave Petition and the B
present appeal. While issuing notice on 21.11.2014 in the
special leave petition, this Court directed for maintenance of
status quo as regards the service of the petitioner-appellant.
       8. The Division Bench of the High Court has held in favour
of the appellant that as per an earlier Full Bench judgment, the C
provisions of MEPS Act and MEPS Rules are applicable to
employees working in polytechnic colleges which being
institutions imparting technical education stand covered by the
term 'School' as defined under Section 2(24) of the MEPS
Act. In fact, in that view of the matter, in the earlier round the D
appellant was relegated to avail statutory remedy of appeal
before the School Tribunal. The Division Bench noticed the
qualifications prescribed for the post of Principal by the AICTE
which the appellant fulfils. However, the Division Bench
accepted the stand of the respondent-State that in view of E
recommendations of AICTE made through letter dated
20.12.1999, the State Government had passed a resolution
for accepting those recommendations on 27.2.2003 and
therefore, the provisions of MEPS Rules providing for
promotion of the senior most teacher to the post of Principal F
will not hold the field and that as per recommendations of
AICTE, recruitment of 50% cadre posts is required to be by
open selection through advertisement at national level and only
50% by promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. On
this plea the High Court decided against the appellant and G
held that it was unable to hold that post of Principal in a private
polytechnic has to be filled up necessarily by promotion though
so provided in Rule 3(3) of the MEPS Rules. This relevant Rule
is extracted in the judgment of the High Court and reads as
follows:-                                                           H
140    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (2015] 15 S.C.R.


A      "3. Qualifications and appointment of Head.
      (1) A person to be appointed as the Head (a) (i) of a
      primary school having an enrollment of students above
      200 or having Standards I to VII shall be the senior most
      trained teacher who has put in not less than five years'
B     service: and
      (ii) Of-any other primary school shall be the Senior-most
      trained teacher in the School;
      (b) of a secondary school including night school or a
c         Junior College of Education shall be a graduate
          possessing Bachelor's degree in teaching or
          education of a statutory University or any other
          qualification recognized by Government as equivalent
          thereto and possessing not less than five years', total
D         fulltime teaching experience after graduation in a
          secondary school or a Junior College of Education
          out of which at least two years' experience shall be
          after acquiring Bachelor's degree in teaching or
          education:
 E    Provided that, in the case of a person to be appointed
      as the Head of a night secondary school -
      (i) he shall not be the one who is holding the post of Head
          or Assistant Head of a day school, and
 F    (ii) the experience laid down in clause (b) of sub-rule(1)
           may be as a part time teacher.
      (2)   x x x x x
      (3) The Management of a school including a night school
G     shall fill up the post of the Head by appointing the senior-
      most member of the teaching staff (in accordance with
      the guidelines laid down in Schedule "F" from amongst
      those employed in a school (if it is the only school run by
      the Management) or schools [if there are more than one
H     school (excluding night school) conducted by it] who fulfills
     PRAMOD v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA& ORS.                          141
               [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.]

     the conditions laid down in sub-rule(1) and who has a         A
     satisfactory record of service."
      9. On behalf of the appellant, it was pointed out that the
judgment under appeal has correctly held that the Government
Rules 2012 apply only to Government polytechnic or equivalent
institute, i.e., the institute having same status as that of B
Government polytechnic and not a private polytechnic, as in
the case at hand. It was further submitted that this view of the
High Court knocks out the basis of the Director's order against
the appellant which was impugned before the High Court and
there was no necessity for the High Court to examine any other C
issue.
      10. An emphatic stand was taken on behalf of the
appellant that except in the Government Rules, 2012, there is
no provision made by the State Government or by the AICTE          D
in respect of mode of filling up of the post of Principal and
none at all for a private polytechnic. Hence, according to the
learned senior counsel for the appellant, Rule 3(3) of the MEPS
Rules being statutory, cannot be ignored by the respondent
authorities and those alone apply to the claim of the appellant    E
which deserves to be allowed but was wrongly disallowed by
the Director and the High Court.
       11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Society
took the stand that the High Court had erred in holding that the
Government Rules 2012 cannot apply to the polytechnic at hand      F
on the ground that it is a private aided institute. According to
him, since, the society ultimately succeeded before the High
Court, it was not obliged to come in appeal against the adverse
finding noticed above and is entitled to challenge that finding
to further support the final conclusions of the High Court. In     G
such a situation we granted further time to the State
Government of Maharashtra to file an affidavit on the issue as
to wl ietherthe Government Rules 2012 apply to the respondent
polytechnic which is a private aided institute. Such affidavit
dated 8.12.2015 is now on record and it is the firm stand of       H
142         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2015] 15 S.C.R.


A     the State Government that the Government Rules 2012 are
      not applicable to the respondent polytechnic as it is only a
      private aided institute.
        12. We have ourselves also examined the said rules,
  2012 and we find ourselves in agreement with the views
8 expressed by the High Court that these Rules will not apply to
  private aided polytechnic such as the respondent's polytechnic.
  As a result there is no other Statutory Act or Rule to take away
  the force of Rule 3(3) of the MEPS Rules which requires the
  management of the polytechnic, which is covered by the
C definition of the 'School' under the MEPS Act, to fill up the post
  of the Head of Institution, i.e., the Principal by appointing the
  senior most member of the teaching staff in accordance with
  the guidelines laid down in Schedule 'F' from amongst the
  teachers employed in the school. It is not in dispute that
D respondent-polytechnic is the only polytechnic run by the
  Management. Schedule 'F' to the Rules prescribes only the
  guidelines for fixation of seniority in different schools. In the
  present case, there is no dispute that the appellant is senior
  most teacher in the polytechnic. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 3 permits
E direct recruitment only after obtaining prior permission of the
  competent Government Officer in a situation where no suitable
  teacher possessing the prescribed qualifications is available
  for promotion as Head.
 F       13. In our considered view the High Court has erred in
  law in holding that the mode of appointment by promotion under
  Rule 3(3) of the MEPS Rules cannot be applied to a
  polytechnic although it is a school because there is no separate
  qualification prescribed for a polytechnic in sub-rule(1) of Rule
  3. The said sub-rule contains the qualifications and
G appointment of Head not only for primary schools but also for
  secondary school including night school or a junior college of
  education. Appellant fulfils those qualifications. Further it is
  nobody's case that the appellant does not fulfill the educational
H qualification for the post of Principal of a polytechnic even as
     PRAMOD v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA& ORS.                           143
               [SHIVAKIRTI SINGH, J.]

prescribed by the AICTE. In such a situation the mode of            A
appointment prescribed under the statutory Rule 3(3) could
not have been ignored and since the appellant was admittedly
the senior most member of the teaching staff in the polytechnic
at the relevant time, as also held in the earlier judgment of the
High Court when he was declared entitled to all the benefits of     B
In-charge Principal of the polytechnic since 9. 7.2007, the
appellant could not have been denied appointment by
promotion to the vacant post of Pri_ncipal. The respondent-
Director erred in rejecting the appellant's claim and in not
issuing directions for his appointment by promotion while           c
passing order on the representation of the appellant and
rejecting the same on 17.10.2012. The writ petition preferred
by the appellant against that order has also been wrongly
dismissed by the High Court by the order under appeal dated
10.10.2014.                                                         D
      14. In view of aforesaid findings, it is to be worked out
as to what relief the appellant deserves to be granted now
when the respondent-society has proceeded to superannuate
him w.e.f. 31.3.2015 without seeking permission of this Court
and acting contrary to the status-quo order passed on               E
21.11.2014.
      15. On the issue of age of superannuation, there was no
occasion for the High Court to consider the relevant Rules or
Notifications and before us there is a serious controversy as F
to whether the age of superannuation on the post of a teacher
other than Principal ought to be 60, 62 or 65 years. According
to respondent, the State Government had issued a Notification
through the Higher and Technical Education Department dated
5th March, 2010 whereby the age of superannuation for non-
government polytechnic institutions has been increased from G
58 years to 60 years and it can be extended upto 62 years
only after obtaining prior approval of the State Government.
Similarly, for the post of Principal the age of superannuation
has been increased to 65 years but with the rider that State
                                                               H
144         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015] 15S.C.R.


A     Government should grant approval for any further extension
      beyond 62 years. On the other hand, the stand of the appellant
      is that he has been arbitrarily ignored and not considered for
      extension because of pending litigation against the
      Management of the respondent-society since several years.
B     It is further case of the appellant that: State Government has
      never differed with the recommendation of the AICTE on the
      issue of age of superannuation; in exercise of its statutory
      powers under sub-section (1) of Section 23 read with Section
      1O(i) and (v), of the All India Council for Technical Education
C     Act, 1987, the AICTE has issued the Regulations dated 5th
      March, 201 O; and the _Regulations, inter alia, provide for age
      of superannuation and since they apply to technical institutions
      conducting technical education and such other courses/
      programmes and areas as notified by the Council from time
o     to time, the age of superannuation for teachers of the
      Polytechnic stand enhanced to 65 years with sole exception
      of Librarian whose age of superannuation continues to be 62
      years.
         16. From the materials and rival contentions noted above,
E it is evident that even as a teacher the appellant's age of
  superannuation could have been considered for extension upto
  62 years if steps had been taken for the same in due course.
  Morevoer, the Regulations of AICTE being statutory, unless
  these have been superseded or annulled by a competent
F authority, the appellant's age of superannuation stood extended
  upto 65 years. Lastly and in any event, this Court had directed
  for maintenance of status-quo iri respect of appellant's service
  and such order has been ignored by the concerned respondents
  by proceeding to superannuate the appellant at the age of 60
G years. Yet another dimension requires special consideration
  in the interest of justice. As per the statutory MEPS Rules, the
  appellant should have been promoted as the Head of the
  School or in other words Principal of the polytechnic long back
  and in any case by the end of the year 2012, provided the
H respondent-Director had not passed an illegal and erroneous
     PRAM OD    v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.                     145
                   [SHIVAKIRTI SINGH, J.]

order on 17.10.2012, when he wrongly proceeded to apply            A
the Government Rules 2012 to the private respondent
polytechnic. If a correct view had been taken by the respondent-
D irector then by the end of 2012, the appellant would have
been occupying the post of Principal in the respondent
polytechnic and then he would not have superannuated before        B
65 years or in any case before 62 years of age.
      17. In the facts noticed above and since there is some
confusion and lack of assistance on the issue of age of
superannuation from the side of respondents and also because
there is no discussion on this issue in the judgment under C
appeal, we refrain to lay down the law in this regard. But in the
interest of justice, we deem it proper to direct for immediate
reinstatement of the appellant within two weeks from today.
Ordinarily we would have directed Management of the
respondent society to consider the appellant's case for D
promotion and pass appropriate orders in accordance with
law but from the materials on record as well as from the
submissions in the course of hearing, we have gathered an
impression that the Management of the Respondent Society
cannot be presumed to be just and fair to the appellant and E
expected to act in accordance with law. Hence, instead of
relegating the appellant to the mercy of the Management, we
direct the concerned respondents to issue order of
reinstatement and also appointment of the appellant by
promotion to the post of Principal of the respondent polytechnic F
within four weeks from tod::iy.
     18. The appellant shall be treated to have been appointed
by such promotion to the post of Principal w.e.f. 1st December,
2012 as this in normal course should have been the tir 1e taken
                                                                   G
for such promotion if the respondent-Director had not passed
a wrong order on 17 .10.2012 . .The appellant shall also be
entitled to all consequential benefits on the basis of such
promotion. Since the appellant's service was disturbed by
superannuating him w.e.f. 31.3.2015 contrary to our interim        H
146           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 15 S.C.R.


A     order, he shall be deemed to have continued in service without
      interruption even after 31.3.2015 with entitlement to full salary
      and other permissible emoluments for the entire period till
      reinstatement.
            19. Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms with cost
B     of Rs.50,000/-. The cost shall be payable by the Respondent
      No.4-Society to the appellant alongwith other arrears within
      two months.


      Devika Gujral                                       Appeal allowed.