JUDGMENT R. M. SAVANT, J. :- By way of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner takes exception to the grant of approval of B.Ed. scale to the respondent No.3 (Maruti Gawade) w.e.f. 3-7-1998 thereby depriving the petitioner the said B.Ed. scale and also challenges the order dated 24-12-1999 pertaining to withdrawal of the petitioner's B.Ed. scale. Consequently, the petitioner is also seeking the quashing and setting aside of the order dated 24-12-1999 and also seeking relief to grant B.Ed. scale in favour of the petitioner w.e.f. 21-7-1997 including the period between 3-7-1998 to 13-61999 when the said Maruti Gawade was granted the B.Ed. scale. 2. The facts, in brief, involved in the petition can be stated thus :The petitioner’s qualification is B.Sc. B.Ed. and was appointed as Assistant Teacher of Mathematics subject in pursuance to the advertisement issued by the respondent No. 2/Management in regular and permanent vacancy. The petitioner was granted B.Ed. scale from the year 1996 upto the academic year 1997-98, however, sometime in the year 1998 the said scale was denied to the petitioner to accommodate the respondent No.3 one Maruti Gawade. It is also required to be noted that senior scale came to be granted w.e.f. 10-12-1998 in favour of the respondent No.4 one Ankush Kamble also. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned it appears that on 14-6-1999 on retirement of one Mr. H. P. Salunke the petitioner was again granted B.Ed. scale and approval was accordingly granted in favour a the petitioner on 15-6-1999. It is the case of the petitioner that at the instance an on the complaint of the respondent No.4 (Ankush Kamble), the grant of B.Ed scale was withdrawn by the respondent No. 1 on 24-12-1999. On the basis of the said letter dated 24-12-1999 from the respondent No.1, the petitioner's scale is reduced from B.Ed. to D.Ed. vide order dated 3-1-2000. This resulted in the petitioner approaching the School Tribunal challenging the said order dated 3-1 2000. By the order dated 19-1-2000 the said order dated 3-1-2000 reducing the petitioner's scale from B.Ed. to D.Ed. was stayed by the School Tribunal. Ultimately, reduction of the petitioner's scale from B.Ed. to D.Ed. was set aside by the School Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 8-3-2002 and the petitioner was directed to be paid at the B.Ed. scale. By the order dated 19-1-2000 the said order dated 3-1-2000 reducing the petitioner's scale from B.Ed. to D.Ed. was stayed by the School Tribunal. Ultimately, reduction of the petitioner's scale from B.Ed. to D.Ed. was set aside by the School Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 8-3-2002 and the petitioner was directed to be paid at the B.Ed. scale. It appears that the respondent No.4 herein has approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No. 7210/2002 by virtue of which the order of the School Tribunal was stayed by this Court. The said Writ Petition No. 7210/2002 is tagged along with the instant petition. 3. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has succeeded before the School Tribunal inasmuch as the School Tribunal has quashed and set aside the order dated 3-1-2000 relegating the petitioner to the B.Ed. scale. The petitioner has not filed the instant petition challenging the order of the School Tribunal but has filed this petition claiming certain reliefs in respect of his claim to the B.Ed. scale on certain grounds urged in the petition. 4. In our view the petitioner having approached the School Tribunal against the withdrawal of the B.Ed. scale to him, the petitioner ought to have challenged the said reduction on all the grounds that were available to him at that time. It is not open for the petitioner to file the instant petition claiming the said B.Ed. scale on some other ground which according to him was not available to him before the School Tribunal. In our view the same cannot confer any right on the petitioner to directly file this petition. The petitioner having not urged the said ground before the School Tribunal, in our view, the petition is barred by the principles of constructive res judicata or principles analogous thereto. In our view, the petition is not maintainable on the said ground and therefore, is required to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Petition dismissed.