ORAL JUDGMENT :- This petition assails the Judgment and Or dated 18-9-1991 passed by the School Tribunal, Pune Region, Pune there dismissing Appeal No. 35 of 1989 filed by the petitioner challenging promotion of the present respondent No. 2 to the post of Head Master Mahatma Gandhi High School, Karmala with effect from 22-2-1989. Hence petition is treated as one filed under Article 227 of the Constitution. 2. Admittedly, during the pendency of this petition, the petitioner retired on 31-7-2000 and the respondent No.2 on 31-7-1997. The post of He Master, as at present, is occupied by a new incumbent appointed as per the Rule and though the petitioner was in service as on 31-7-1997, his claim for promotion to the post of Head Master was not considered till he retired. 3. In his appeal before the School Tribunal, it was the case of the petition that in the seniority list of all the teachers in the M.G. High School, his name w at Sr. No. 11, whereas the name of the respondent No.2 who was promoted the post of Head Master, was at Sr. No. 15 and the management had brought pressure on all the 14 senior teachers, including the petitioner himself a obtained their refusal to accept the promotion to the said post. This action of t management was illegal and in any case as per him, the first 10 teachers also him were not interested in accepting promotion to the post of Head Master an therefore, he being the next senior-most teacher, he ought to have be considered. His claim was illegally denied and under pressure he was made sign some statement and thus the promotion granted to respondent No. 2 w illegal and void ab-initio. 4. The management filed an affidavit in reply and opposed the appeal. The School Tribunal dismissed the appeal by the impugned order on three grounds namely, y, (a) the appellant failed to place on record the names of 10 senior above him, (b) the appellant was not the senior-most Head Master who legitimately put-forth his claim for the said post and (c) it was not known Senior the 10 senior teachers had voluntarily given their no objection or relinq- uished their claim to the post of Head Master or there was any act of force explore so they were not before the tribunal. On these grounds the Tribunal that the appeal was premature and not maintainable. It also noted that another teacher by name Mr. Vittal Hazare who was much senior to the petitioner . already moved Appeal No. 88 of 1989 and claimed promotion to the post of d Master and in any case the said appeal was pending. 5. While granting Rule, the prayer for interim relief was not considered and way of amendment the petitioner has placed on record a copy of the common government decided in Appeal No. 88 of 1989 and Appeal No. 167 of 1991. By the Judgment dated 20-4-1993 Appeal No. 88 of 1989 came to be dismissed and s the claim of Mr. Hazare stood rejected for the post of Head Master. Whereas peal No. 167 of 1991 which was filed by the present respondent No.2 came to allowed and he continues to hold the post of Head Master. 6. Mr. Joshi the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that all other senior teachers have been impleaded as respondent Nos. 3 to 12 in this petition and the petitioner as well as all the respondents-teachers by now retired m service on attaining the age of superannuation. However, the petitioner had rightful claim to the post of Head Master as he was senior to respondent No.2 , therefore, as per Mr. Joshi this petition deserves to be allowed by giving consequential benefits which go with the post of Head Master till the petitioner attained the age of superannuation. 7. The whole controversy in all the appeals either filed by the petitioner or her teachers revolved around the main issue of inter se seniority of the trained graduate teachers. The petitioner relied upon some seniority list which was allegedly published by the Head Master and he claimed that he was at Sr. No. 11 and the respondent No. 2 was at Sr. No. 15 and thus junior to him. The management in its detail written statement refuted this and contended that the authority list relied upon by the petitioner was made by the Head Master and it was as illegally drawn. The management pointed out in its written statement before e School Tribunal in para 9 that the respondent No.2 was a trained graduate teacher in the year 1968 and the petitioner having joined on 9-6-1969 was certainly a junior teacher to respondent No.2. The management pointed out in its written statement before e School Tribunal in para 9 that the respondent No.2 was a trained graduate teacher in the year 1968 and the petitioner having joined on 9-6-1969 was certainly a junior teacher to respondent No.2. The School Tribunal did not deem appropriate to consider the main issue of inter se seniority and dismissed the appeal on the above mentioned grounds as premature and not maintainable. The issue of seniority is, therefore, required to be considered in this petition. 8. Mr. Hazare who had filed Appeal No. 88 of 1989 while replying to one the civil applications moved by the petitioner has placed on record the seniority list of all the trained graduate Assistant Teachers as in June, 1997. It is evident and which is not disputed that the respondent No. 2 obtained his STC qualification in the year 1962 and he joined as Assistant Teacher in the very same ear. He obtained his B.A. degree in 1968 and B.Ed. degree in 1971. As per the petitioner, the respondent No.2 having obtained the degree of B.Ed. in the year 1971, he could be treated to be a trained graduate Assistant Teacher only from the year 1971 and he would come in category "C" under Schedule "P" t M.E.P.S. Rules, 1981 only in the year 1971 or after completing 10 ye service from 1962 onwards. The petitioner having joined on 9-6-1969 trained graduate Assistant Teacher claims to be senior to respondent No.2. presumption is not supported by the Rules. 9. It is not the petitioners case that after the M.E.P.S. Rules were brought into force, the seniority list of all Assistant Teachers was finalized under R and in the said list he was shown senior to the respondent No.2. The petit relied upon the so-called seniority list published by the Head Master who, the management, was his close relation and the management disputed the seniority list in its written statement submitted before the School Tribuna emphasised that respondent No. 2 was senior to the petitioner. Rule 6 0 M.E.P.S. Rules states that the minimum qualifications for the posts of teach the primary schools shall be as specified in Schedule "B". Rule 6 0 M.E.P.S. Rules states that the minimum qualifications for the posts of teach the primary schools shall be as specified in Schedule "B". Clause II of Sch "B" states that for appointment as trained teachers in secondary schools following qualifications are laid down ;- (i) A Bachelors degree in Teaching or Education University or a qualification Recognised by equivalent thereto; (ii) A Teaching Diploma of any statutory University, if a pe holding it is appointed for the first time before the 1st Oct. 1970 and continues to serve as a teacher with or without break that date. (iii) A Secondary Teachers Certificate of the Education Department Maharashtra State, if a person holding it is appointed for the time before the 1st October, 1970 and continues to serve teacher with or without break after that date. (iv) A Diploma in Education of the Graduates Basic Training Centre As noted earlier, the respondent No.2 with his STC qualification case be appointed as an Assistant Teacher for the first time with effect from 2 1963 and he obtained his B.A. degree in the year 1968. Thus on acquiring B.A. degree he met the qualifications in Clause (iii) above and became a trained graduate teacher in the secondary school. The petitioner on the other hand, as a trained graduate Assistant Teacher for the first time on 9-6-1969 i.e. a one year later. Clause (iii) above also protected the respondent No.2 as he joined before 1st October, 1970 and the scheme for the qualifications as well as drawing seniority list of the teachers in the primary and secondary schools, in Secondary School Code was on the same lines and while drafting the M.B. Rules and more particularly the Schedule "B" it was retained as it is except those who came to be appointed after the said Rules were brought into force. learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the guide-lines for fixation of seniority of teachers in the secondary school set out in Schedule "P" to Rules of 1981 and submitted that in category "C" the respondent No.2 co enter only in the year 1971 or in the year 1973 i.e. after 10 years of post S service. Note 1 in Schedule "P", which reads as under, is required to considered ;- "For the purpose of categories C, D, and E teachers with S.T.C., T.D., Jr. P.T.C. Dip. Note 1 in Schedule "P", which reads as under, is required to considered ;- "For the purpose of categories C, D, and E teachers with S.T.C., T.D., Jr. P.T.C. Dip. T., Dip.Ed., (post-S.S.c. one year course) qualifications appointed on or after 1st October, 1970 shall be considered as untrained and their seniority shall be fixed in the "F" or "G" category of untrained teachers, as the case may be." 10. This note, therefore, indicates that there was a distinction made amongst the teachers who obtained S.T.C. qualifications prior to 1st October, and were in service and those who were appointed on or after 1st October, The petitioner is not the one who is covered by Note 1 and in any case before the Rules of 1981 were brought into force, respondent No.2 was senior a senior trained graduate Assistant Teacher to the petitioner by following guide-lines as were set out in the Secondary School Code. The management , , therefore, right in its contention before the School Tribunal that the respondent No.2 was senior to the petitioner and was rightly promoted to the t of Head Master. Mr. Hazare is the party-respondent in this petition and in y case his claim to the post of Head Master cannot be adjudicated in this petition, more so when his dismissal of appeal attained its finality. 11. Consequently, this petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. Rule charged with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.