A perusal of annexure R 1 would show that the appellant had joined the school on 23.7.1957 whereas respondent No.
4 and had better experience on the post of Incharge Head Mistress on companyparison of the merit of both the companytenders.
The Municipal Council, Tumsar, the employer of the companytending parties in its Resolution Annexure B referred to the available record including the seniority list of 1988 which had number been approved by the Standing Committee or the General Committee of the Municipal Council and found that the appellant herein was senior to the respondent No.
The President of the respondent municipal companyncil issued the orders for promotion of the appellant as Head Mistress on 13.7.1993.
Respondent No.
4 on 16.7.1962.
4 was employed on 20.8.1959.
Respondent No.
The appellant is shown to have appointed in the high school in the year 1959 whereas respondent No.
The Municipal Council resolved On the above information it is seen that Smt.
She was held to be eligible for her place in the seniority from 1968 only.
It is also on record that the appellant had rendered services to teach high school classes from 1959 prior to her substantive appointment on 4.9.1968.
Bawankar is senior in service than Shri J.G. Gaidhane and therefore, Smt.
4 is stated to have been appointed as Assistant Head Master on 5.10.1990.
4 filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of an appropriate writ setting aside the order dated 13.7.1993 by which the appellant was promoted as Head Mistress with a further direction to the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council to appoint him as Head Master of the Municipal Nehru High School, Tumsar.
Finding that the Standing Committee of the Municipal Council had wrongly given seniority to the appellant, the writ petition filed by him was allowed.
Sethi, J. The appellant claims to have been appointed as Head Mistress on the basis of her seniority in the high schools on 25.9.1990.
