JUDGMENT - D.D. SINHA, J.:---Heard Mrs. Patil, learned Counsel for the intervenor. Application for intervention is allowed. 2. Heard Shri A.P. Deshpande, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri R.R. Deshpande, A.G.P. for respondent No. 3-Education Officer. Though served, none appears for the management. 3. In the instant petition the petitioner is restricting her claim only in respect of quashing of the advertisement dated 16-6-1986 published by the respondent No. 1-management since the respondent No. 2 is no longer in service. 4. Shri Deshpande, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent No. 1 advertised the post of Head Master in the News Paper "Daily Lokamat" dated 16-6-1986 inviting application from the persons having passed S.C.C., D.Ed. with 5 years experience as an Assistant Teacher and directed them to appear before the respondent No. 1 on 28-6-1986 at 11.00 a.m. It is submitted that the petitioner has been working with the respondent No. 1 since 6-8-1979 as an Assistant Teacher and was having experience of about 6 years as an Assistant Teacher. It is contended by the learned Counsel that as per sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, the advertisement for the post of Head of the school should not be issued unless a suitable teacher possessing the required qualification is not available in the school. It is contended by the learned Counsel that at the relevant time the petitioner was duly qualified and eligible to be promoted to the post of Head and in view of Rule 3(3) of the M.E.P.S. Rules, 1981, his claim ought to have been considered by the management for the post of the Head of the school. 5. Shri Deshpande, the learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the advertisement issued by the respondent No. 1-management is also violative of sub-rule (5)(a) of Rule 3 of the M.E.P.S. Rules since no prior permission was obtained from the Education Officer by the management as required under the said Rule. It is, therefore, contended that the entire action of the respondent No. 1 - management in advertising the post is not sustainable since the same is violative of Rule 3(3) as well as sub-rule (5)(a) of Rule 3 of the M.E.P.S. Rules, 1981. It is, therefore, contended that the entire action of the respondent No. 1 - management in advertising the post is not sustainable since the same is violative of Rule 3(3) as well as sub-rule (5)(a) of Rule 3 of the M.E.P.S. Rules, 1981. It is submitted that by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court, the management has not made any substantive appointment pursuant to the impugned advertisement dated 16-6-1986, however, continued to appoint headmistress of the school on an ad hoc basis. It is submitted by the learned Counsel that the impugned advertisement, therefore, may be quashed and set aside and a direction be given to the respondent No. 1-management to consider the claim of the petitioner in view of Rule 3(3) of the M.E.P.S. Rules, 1981. 6. Mrs. Patil, the learned Counsel for the intervenor adopted the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in regard to the legal provisions of the Rules. However, it is submitted by her that the intervenor is the senior most teacher in the school and is also qualified and seeking a direction to the management to consider her claim in view of Rule 3(3) of the M.E.P.S. Rules, 1981. 7. We have considered the contentions raised by the learned Counsel and perused the relevant provisions referred to above by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and intervenor. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 contemplate that the management of the school shall fill up the post of 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) who fulfils the conditions laid down in sub-rule (1) and who has a satisfactory record of service. The above referred sub-rule (3) clearly contemplates that the management is entitled only to appoint the senior most member of the teaching staff employed in the school on the basis of the other requirements stated in sub-rule (3). The management, therefore, has to exhaust the option which is contemplated in sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the M.E.P.S. Rules while filling up the post of the Head of the school. The management, therefore, has to exhaust the option which is contemplated in sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the M.E.P.S. Rules while filling up the post of the Head of the school. In case this option is not available i.e. if there is nobody qualified and eligible from amongst the members of the teaching staff of the school then only the management can resort to sub-rule (5)(a) of the M.E.P.S. Rules for the purposes of issuing advertisement for the post of Head of the school that too only after obtaining prior permission of the Education Officer in this regard. 8. In the instant case, the management has given go bye to sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 and straightway issued the impugned advertisement dated 16-6-1986 for filling up the post of the Head of the school. It is not disputed that the prior permission of the Education Officer has not been obtained by the management before issuing the abovereferred advertisement. The entire action of the management, in our view, is contrary to the provisions of sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 as well as sub-rule (5)(a) of Rule 3 of the M.E.P.S. Rules, 1981 and, therefore, is not sustainable in law. 9. In the circumstances, the impugned advertisement dated 16-6-1986 issued by the respondent No. 1-management is hereby quashed and set aside being violative of sub-rule (5)(a) of Rule 3 of the M.E.P.S. Rules. The management is hereby directed to consider the claim of the petitioner as well as the intervenor in accordance with sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the M.E.P.S. Rules, 1981 and after considering the claims of the persons those who are eligible in view of sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of M.E.P.S. Rules, 1981, make the substantive appointment to the post of Head Mistress of the school within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this judgment. 10. In the result, the petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs. Petition allowed. -----