Judgment : Both these petitions are disposed of by this common judgment, as the parties thereto, as also the issues raised therein, are common. 2. Writ Petition No. 1315 of 2009 is filed by the Management of the school. The Management has challenged the decision of the Deputy Director of Education, Mumbai Division, dated 20th June, 2009 (Exhibit ‘V’) regarding the appointment of Shivaji Kisan Janrao (respondent No. 4 in this petition, hereinafter referred to as “Shivaji Janrao” for the sake of brevity) as Principal of petitioner No. 2-school, thereby directing initiation of action in the matter by the Education Inspector and to submit compliance report. The Management has further prayed for declaration that, it being a minority institution, has a right to choose and select Head Mistress or Principal of their choice and to direct the Deputy Director of Education and Education Inspector to approve the appointment of Smt. Harsha Trivedi as Head Mistress with effect from 1st August, 2008. 3. The second writ petition, being Writ Petition No. 2409 of 2010, has been filed by Harsha Bakul Trivedi, who was appointed as Head Mistress of the school with effect from 1st August, 2008. Even this petitioner has challenged the self-same order passed by the Deputy Director of Education dated 20th June, 2009 and has prayed for further direction against the Secretary of the Department of Education and Employment (School Education), Government of Maharashtra, Deputy Director of Education and Education Inspector (South), to grant approval to her appointment as Head Mistress of the school with retrospective effect from 1st August, 2008. She has further prayed for direction against the said respondents to release the arrears of salary due to her from 1st August, 2008 to 31st October, 2010 at the rate of Rs.35,000/- or at such other rate as is payable under the VIth Pay Commission Report with 18% per annum and continue to pay the same from 1st November, 2010 onwards. During the pendency of this petition, Harsha Trivedi took out Notice of Motion No. 305 of 2011, praying for interim directions. The reliefs prayed therein would be worked out in terms of this decision. 4. During the pendency of this petition, Harsha Trivedi took out Notice of Motion No. 305 of 2011, praying for interim directions. The reliefs prayed therein would be worked out in terms of this decision. 4. Briefly sated, the institution of the petitioners in the former petition has been granted status of Linguistic Gujarati Minority by the Controlling Officer & Principal Secretary, Minority Development Department, Government of Maharashtra, vide order dated 11th February, 2009 pursuant to the applications made by the Management on 1VIth December, 2008 and 10th February, 2009. It is common ground that Mrs. Damayanti P. Bhagat was the Head Mistress of the school. After her retirement on attaining age of superannuation, Shivaji Janrao was appointed as Head Master with effect from 5th November, 2007 vide order of appointment dated 11st December, 2009. The said order of appointment reads thus:- “UNDER THE MANAGMENT OF Tel.:24022372 SHRI HIRJI BHOJRAJ & SONS C.V.O. JAIN CHATRALAYA SHRI HIRJI GHELABHAI SAVLA VIDYALAYA A High School Comprising: 426, Shraddhanand Road COMMERCE, ARTS & SCIENCE SECTIONS King’s Circle, Matunga S.S.C. INDEX No. S 31.04.030 MUMBAI 400 019 Ref.56-2007-08 Date 11 DEC 2007 To, SHRI Shivaji K. Janrao, B.A., B.P. Ed. Dear Sir, I have the pleasure to inform you that you are hereby appointed as Head Master in this school in the Scale of Rs.7500-250-12000 with effect from 05-11-2007. You will (be) entitled to allowances such as D.A., HRA., CLA., T.A. as specifically sanctioned by the Government from time to time. You are requested to acknowledge the receipt of this Order of appointment & communicate the acceptance from the date of receipt of the same. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Sd/- HON. SECRETARY, HIRJI GHELABHAI SAVLA VIDYALAYA 425, Shraddhanand Road, King’s Circle Bombay400 019 ” 5. The Management informed about the said appointment of Shivaji Janrao to the Education Inspector on 17th December, 2007. The said Shivaji Janrao, however, on 1st May, 2008, informed the Secretary of the school that he has decided not to work as Head Master of the school with effect from 1st June, 2008 and to relieve him of the said responsibility. The said letter reads thus:- “ Mr Shivaji Kisan Janrao Asst. The said Shivaji Janrao, however, on 1st May, 2008, informed the Secretary of the school that he has decided not to work as Head Master of the school with effect from 1st June, 2008 and to relieve him of the said responsibility. The said letter reads thus:- “ Mr Shivaji Kisan Janrao Asst. Tr, H.G. S. Vidyalaya, Matunga, Mumbai Mumbai 19 01/05/05 To, Hon. Secretary H.G. Savla Vidyalaya, Matunga, Mumbai-19 Sub:- walintary (sic) I want to not to continue me as H M of this school Respected Sir, After today’s meeting with you as per expectation I have decided not to work as a Head Master since 1st June 2008. You may appoint another person as a H.M. of our school. I will co-operate with all the activities which will be arranged for the development of our school & I will help all the trustees and new Head Master who will come from June 2008. I am seeking that you should hand over another responsibility. I will be helpful to all the dues I will be working as a teacher in our school. Sd/- 01/05/08 ” 6. The Management immediately informed the Education Inspector about the intent of Shivaji Janrao noted in the above-said communication. The said letter reads thus:- “UNDER THE MANAGMENT OF Tel.:24022372 SHRI HIRJI BHOJRAJ & SONS C.V.O. JAIN CHATRALAYA SHRI HIRJI GHELABHAI SAVLA VIDYALAYA A High School Comprising: 426, Shraddhanand Road COMMERCE, ARTS & SCIENCE SECTIONS King’s Circle, Matunga S.S.C. INDEX No. S 31.04.030 MUMBAI 400 019 Ref.56-2007-08 Date 05/05/2008 To, The Educational Inspector, Gr. Mumbai (South), Mumbai-400 007 Sub:- Resignation of Newly appointed Head Master Shri Shivaji K. Janrao, B.A., B.P.Ed. w.e.f. 1-06-2008 Dear Madam, I have the honour to inform you that Shri Shivaji Kisan Janrao, B.A., B.Ed., Sr. Most Asstt. Tr. Of this school is appointed as Head Master of this school w.e.f. 05-11-2007, in place of Smt. D.P. Bhagat, B.A. B.Ed. (Previous Head mistress) who was (sic) retired on Superannuation on 04-11-2007 A.N. In this regard I inform you that (in) the meeting with the members of management on 1st of May 2008, it was decided (that) due to circumstances Shri Shivaji Kisan Janrao willingly do (sic) not want to accept the Post of the Head Master w.e.f. 01-06-2008. The copy of the Resignation letter of Shri Shivaji Kisan Janrao, Sr. most Asst. Tr., is attached herewith for your ready reference. The copy of the Resignation letter of Shri Shivaji Kisan Janrao, Sr. most Asst. Tr., is attached herewith for your ready reference. It is also decided by the members of the Management that the appointment of New Principal be made from the next academic year 2008-09. The proposal regarding the Notification of Name, as Head Master, (of) Shri Shivaji Kisan Janrao, which is submitted at the Office of the Educational Inspector, Gr. Mumbai (S), Mumbai-400 007, to be cancelled & the fresh proposal for Notification of Name as Principal to be submitted as early as possible. Now, I request you to please do the needful in the matter as a special case and oblige. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Sd/- HON. SECRETARY, HIRJI GHELABHAI SAVLA VIDYALAYA 425, Shraddhanand Road, King’s Circle Bombay400 019 ” 7. Thereafter, the Management accepted the request of Shivaji Janrao, which decision was communicated to him on 20th May, 2008 by the Secretary of the school. He was informed that his Signing Authority will, however, continue till 30th June, 2008 (A.O.H.). Thereafter, the Management received intimation from the Deputy Director of Education vide letter dated 17th June, 2008, intimating that the Education Officer would initiate action for granting approval to the appointment of Shivaji Janrao after verification of the service record of the employee concerned. On receipt of this communication, the Secretary of the school immediately wrote to the Education Officer vide letter dated 21st July, 2008, placing on record that Shivaji Janrao has already submitted request letter to relieve him from the responsibility of Head Master of the school. The request so tendered by Shivaji Janrao was considered by the Management and was accepted. As a result thereof, the Management was required to fill in the post of Head Master of the school. Consequent thereto, the Management has appointed Smt. Harsha Bakul Trivedi as Head Mistress of the school under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private School (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, hereinafter referred to as “the Act”, for the sake of brevity. The Management requested the Education Inspector to notify the name of Harsha Trivedi as Head Mistress of the school under Section 3(2) of the Act, who was appointed as Principal with effect from 1st August, 2008 onwards. The Management requested the Education Inspector to notify the name of Harsha Trivedi as Head Mistress of the school under Section 3(2) of the Act, who was appointed as Principal with effect from 1st August, 2008 onwards. Thereafter, the Management wrote to Deputy Director of Education on 20th August, 2008, reiterating the position that Shivaji Janrao requested the Management to relieve him from the responsibility of Head Master of the school by his letter dated 1st May, 2008, which request was accepted by the Management, and the post was then filled by appointing Harsha Trivedi as Head Mistress of the school. The Management, once again, wrote to the Education Inspector on 23rd March, 2009, requesting to grant approval to the appointment of Harsha Trivedi as Principal of the school. The said letter reads thus:- “UNDER THE MANAGMENT OF Tel.:24022372 SHRI HIRJI BHOJRAJ & SONS C.V.O. JAIN CHATRALAYA SHRI HIRJI GHELABHAI SAVLA VIDYALAYA A High School Comprising: 426, Shraddhanand Road COMMERCE, ARTS & SCIENCE SECTIONS King’s Circle, Matunga S.S.C. INDEX No. S 31.04.030 MUMBAI 400 019 Ref.91/2008-09 Date 23 MAR 2009 To, The Educational Inspector, Gr. Mumbai (South), Mumbai-400 007 Dear Madam, Sub:- Approval for appointment of Principal of our school. We would like to draw your attention towards following with a request to do the needful at an earliest. 1. We had forwarded a request to accord approval for appointment of Smt. Harshaben B. Trivedi, as a principal of our school, under Rule 3(2) of the M.E.P.S. (Condition of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and notify the name vide our letter No. 63/2008-09, dt. 21.07.2008. 2. We had also informed you that Mr. Janrao Shivaji Kisan has resigned from the post of Principal vide his letter Dt. 01.05.2008. 3. The resignation letter was forwarded to your office on 05.05.2008. 4. Vide our letter No. 56/2007-08, dt. 05.05.2008 addressed to you we had requested to cancel our request for notification of Mr. Shivaji Kisan Janrao. 5. Vide our letter No. 63/2008-09, dt. 21.07.2008 we had reminded your office to do the needful. 6. Meanwhile, our Hon. Secretary & C.E.O. had personally met you on 4th August 2008 & 19th September 2008 and requested for the approval, in view of smooth functioning of the school. 7. Again our Hon. Secretary & Director Mrs.Hemaben Rambhia had met you in the month of November-2008 and requested you to give necessary sanction. 8. 6. Meanwhile, our Hon. Secretary & C.E.O. had personally met you on 4th August 2008 & 19th September 2008 and requested for the approval, in view of smooth functioning of the school. 7. Again our Hon. Secretary & Director Mrs.Hemaben Rambhia had met you in the month of November-2008 and requested you to give necessary sanction. 8. Vide our letter No. 82/2008-09, dt. 22-12-2008, we had once again requested you to accord the requested sanction as surplus teacher, Smt. M.A. Lehuru stands absorbed, which was a stumbling block, as per your office. 9. On 2nd Jan. 2009, Smt. Harshaben B. Trivedi met you with a request to accord the requested sanction. 10. Now, as more than eight months have passed we once again request you to personally took into the matter and accord the requested sanction. Madam, awaiting your positive action in the matter at earliest. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Sd/- (Shri Champakbhai B. Gangar) C.E.O. HON. SECRETARY, HIRJI GHELABHAI SAVLA VIDYALAYA 425, Shraddhanand Road, King’s Circle Bombay400 019 ” 8. The Management, thereafter, forwarded the file containing the papers to notify the appointment of Harsha Trivedi as Head Mistress of the school under Section 3(2) of the Act, to the Education Inspector in duplicate containing the documents which were already submitted in the Office of the Education Inspector on 21st July, 2008. The Management, by another letter dated 4th May, 2009, sent to the Education Inspector, once again, requested him to grant approval to the appointment of Harsha Trivedi as Principal of the school, considering the background referred to in the successive communications sent by the Management to the Education Inspector. The Education Inspector, by his letter dated 24th April, 2009, informed the Secretary of the school that, since appointment of Shivaji Janrao as Principal with effect from 5th November, 2007 has already been approved, it is not possible to accept the request of granting approval in the name of Smt. Harsha Trivedi. By another letter dated 28th May, 2009, the Education Inspector called upon the Secretary of the school to submit the proposal to his office for obtaining approval to the appointment of Shivaji Janrao. 9. In connection with the issue of approval to the post of Head Master of the school, the hearing was fixed on 13th June, 2009. By another letter dated 28th May, 2009, the Education Inspector called upon the Secretary of the school to submit the proposal to his office for obtaining approval to the appointment of Shivaji Janrao. 9. In connection with the issue of approval to the post of Head Master of the school, the hearing was fixed on 13th June, 2009. During that hearing, Shivaji Janrao, for the first time, made a grievance that the letter dated 1st May, 2008 was taken from him forcibly by the office-bearers of the institution, as they wanted to appoint another person as Head Master belonging to their community. In the context of that grievance, the Deputy Director of Education observed that such letter given by Shivaji Janrao was not in conformity with Rule 3(3) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Rules”, for the sake of brevity). He further observed that such resignation is required to be given before the Education Inspector, which is lacking in the present case. As a result, the same cannot be acted upon. Consistent with the said opinion, the Deputy Director of Education, vide his letter dated 20th June, 2009, instructed the Education Inspector to initiate action regarding the appointment of Shivaji Janrao as Principal of the school and submit compliance report. Copy of the said letter was forwarded to the Secretary of the school, along with the Minutes of the hearing held in the office of the Deputy Director of Education. The same read thus:- “No. DDE/Second-6/16193-96 Office of Deputy Director of Education, Mumbai Division, Mumbai, JawaharBal Bhavan, NetajiSubhash Road, CharniRoad(W) Mumbai 400 004 Date: 20th June 2009 To Education Inspector South Ward Sub: Regarding the appointment as Principal of Shri Shivaji K. Janrao Ref.: Letter No. - dated 24/03/2009 of Bahujan Teaching – Non Teaching Employees Sansad Union Enclosed herewith the report of the hearing held in the chamber of Hon. Deputy Director of Education, Mumbai Division, Mumbai on 16/06/2009 regarding the appointment of Shri Shivaji K. Janrao as Principal of Shri Hirji Gelabhai Savla Vidyalaya. Accordingly initiate action in the matter and submit the compliance report immediately. Accordingly initiate action in the matter and submit the compliance report immediately. Sd/-Deputy Director of Education Mumbai Division, Mumbai” Minutes of hearing: “Sub: Regarding the appointment as Principal of Shri Shivaji K. Janrao Hon. Deputy Director of Education enquired with the secretary of the Trust as to when the post of Principal of Shri Hirji Gelabhai Savla Vidyalaya was vacant. The office bearers of the institution informed that as Smt. Damayanti Bhagat, Principal retired in August 2007 due to superannuation, the said post was vacant. On the Hon. Deputy Director of Education enquiring about the Principal’s post of Shri Shivaji K. Janrao, the secretary of the Trust submitted that Shri Janrao gave resignation from the post of Principal on 01/05/2008 to the Trust. When enquired about the same with Shri Janrao, he informed the Hon Deputy Director of Education that his refusal in writing for doing work at the post of Principal was taken forcibly from me as the office bearers of the institution wanted to appoint the person belonging from their community. Upon which, Hon. Deputy Director of Education stated that as per the rules the resignation from the post of Principal is required to be given before the Education Inspector and informed that in that regard there is clear provision in Rule 3(3) of the M.P.E. (Service Conditions) Regulations, 1981 and the said rule was shown to the Secretary of the Trust at the time of hearing. ShriAshok Bahirav informed that Trust is exploiting teachers and asked to give approval at the earliest to Shri Janrao as Principal. Also when Shri Bahirao stated that other person is signing as Principal on school leaving certificates, then Shri Vaity, Superintendent, who was present at the hearing as representative on behalf of the Education Inspector (S) informed that it is noticed that signature of other person has been done on some of the certificates. In this regard, Shri Bahirao stated, enquiry be done and report be sent to me within eight days. Hon. Deputy Director of Education directed to Superintendent Shri Vaity for initiating action accordingly within 15 days. The Secretary of the Trust enquired about the proposal for appointment of Smt Harsha Trivedi as Principal. In this regard, Shri Bahirao stated, enquiry be done and report be sent to me within eight days. Hon. Deputy Director of Education directed to Superintendent Shri Vaity for initiating action accordingly within 15 days. The Secretary of the Trust enquired about the proposal for appointment of Smt Harsha Trivedi as Principal. Upon which Hon. Deputy Director of Education informed that as already the appointment of Shri Janrao is made at the post of Principal and as his refusal has not been given before the Education Inspector, Shri Janrao shall remain at the post of Principal. Upon which the secretary of the Trust stated that Smt. Harsha Trivedi has come for the post of Principal by leaving service and the question of her service will arise and therefore the same may be considered. Upon which Hon. Deputy Director of Education stated that taking into consideration the 16 years’ service rendered by Smt. Harsha Trivedi in other school earlier, she should be considered as teacher at the vacant post in the School of the Trust. Thereafter Hon. Deputy Director of Education declared that the hearing work was over. Sd/- Deputy Director of Education Mumbai Division, Mumbai ” 10. On receipt of the said communication, the Management sent legal notice to the Deputy Director of Education to recall the instructions issued by him to the Education Inspector; and, instead, accord approval to the appointment of Harsha Trivedi as Head Mistress of the school. By this communication, it was highlighted that the institution is a linguistic minority institution, and was free to exercise its choice to appoint Head Master of the school. 11. Since no remedial steps were taken by the Deputy Director of Education, the Management has approached this Court by way of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the reliefs as already referred to earlier. During the pendency of the writ petition filed by the Management, the subsequent appointee, Smt. Harsha Trivedi, has filed separate writ petition for not only setting aside the self-same decision of the Deputy Director of Education dated 20th June, 2009, but also for issuance of direction to the concerned authorities to accord approval to her appointment as Head Mistress of the school with effect from 1st August, 2008 and also for direction to pay her salary for the relevant period. 12. 12. Both these petitions are opposed by Shivaji Janrao, as also the State and its authorities. According to the contesting respondents, once Shivaji Janrao was appointed as Head Master of the school, he could be relieved from that post only if he were to express his unwillingness to work as Head Master before the Education Inspector as required under Rule 3(3). According to Shivaji Janrao, the letter dated 1st May, 2008 was taken from him forcibly by the office-bearers of the Management. Therefore, the same cannot be acted upon. In other words, he ought to be continued to be Head Master, and the Authority was obliged to grant approval to his appointment as such. It is argued on behalf of Shivaji Janrao that, as there would be no vacancy of Head Master, the question of appointing Smt. Harsha Trivedi as Head Mistress of the school would not arise. Besides, the appointment order of Smt. Harsha Trivedi makes no reference to the fact of resignation given by Shivaji Janrao. It is submitted on behalf of Shivaji Janrao that the fact that the Management forwarded the proposal for approval to the appointment of Smt. Harsha Trivedi would militate against the stand of the Management. 13. Having considered the rival submissions, the core issue that needs to be addressed at the outset is: Whether the decision of the Deputy Director of Education is in excess of authority? Indeed, the Deputy Director of Education and the Education Inspector would be competent to decide on the issue of grant or non-grant of approval to the appointment of Harsha Trivedi made by the Management. While considering the said issue, it would be legitimate for the said authorities to verify matters which are germane to the issue of approval alone such as of the eligibility of the incumbent, who has been appointed, and the availability of sanctioned strength, including the observance of quota of reserved post by the Management, if applicable. While considering the said issue, it would be legitimate for the said authorities to verify matters which are germane to the issue of approval alone such as of the eligibility of the incumbent, who has been appointed, and the availability of sanctioned strength, including the observance of quota of reserved post by the Management, if applicable. From the events which have given rise to the present matter, however, the Deputy Director of Education, in the garb of answering the issue of grant or nongrant of approval to the appointment of Harsha Trivedi made by the Management, usurped the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, which alone could have gone into the issue of the genuineness of the request made in writing by Shivaji Janrao to the Management to relieve him from the responsibility of Head Master of the school and the validity of the decision of the school to accept such request. Similarly, the grievance of Shivaji Janrao that the said letter was obtained from him forcibly which, obviously, would result in otherwise termination of Shivaji Janrao from the post of Head Master could be agitated only by way of appeal under Section 9 of the Act, which reads thus:- “Right of appeal to Tribunal to employees of a private school (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law or contract for the time being in force, any employee in a private school,- (a) who is dismissed or removed or whose services are otherwise terminated or who is reduced in rank, by the order passed by the Management; or (b) who is superseded by the Management while making an appointment to any post by promotion; and who is aggrieved, shall have a right to appeal and may appeal against any such order or supersession to the Tribunal constituted under section 8: Provided that, no such appeal shall lie to the Tribunal in any case where the matter has already been decided by a Court of competent jurisdiction or is pending before such Court, on the appointed date or where the order of dismissal, removal, otherwise termination of service or reduction in rank was passed by the Management at any time before the 1st July, 1976. (2) Such appeal shall be made by the employee to the Tribunal within thirty days from the date of receipt by him of the order of dismissal, removal, otherwise termination of service or reduction in rank, as the case may be: Provided that, where such order was made before the appointed date, such appeal may be made within sixty days from the said date. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), the Tribunal may entertain an appeal made to it after the expiry of the said period of thirty or sixty days, as the case may be, if it is satisfied that the appellant has sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within that period. (4) Every appeal shall be accompanied by a fee of Five hundred rupees, which shall not be refunded and shall be credited to the Consolidated Fund of the State.” (emphasis supplied) 14. If any authority is required to buttress the above proposition, we can usefully refer to the decision relied upon by the counsel for the Management in the case of KeshavYeshwantrao Kotwal v. The Director of Education & Ors. reportedin 1984 Mh.L.J. 785 and in the case of SaraswatiSeva Sangh v. The Education Officer (Secondary Section), Zilla Parishad, Thane & Ors. reportedin 2002 (1) All MR 499. The principle underlying the said decisions, is that, it is not open to the Education Officer (Authorities) to issue direction to the school to reinstate any employee to its original post from which he has been otherwise terminated. 15. The letter handed in by Shivaji Janrao, obviously, cannot be treated as ‘resignation’ within the meaning of Rule 40, inasmuch as Rule 40 of the Rules of 1981 deals with a situation where a permanent employee may leave service. However, in the present case, Shivaji Janrao merely requested in writing to relieve him from the responsibility of Head Master of the school, and not to leave the service as such. 16. Suffice it to observe that, even if the plea of Shivaji Janrao were to be accepted as it is, the conclusion to be deduced therefrom would be that he has been otherwise terminated by the Management from the post of Head Master of the school. Such grievance, as aforesaid, will have to be and ought to be taken before the Tribunal by way of statutory appeal under Section 9 of the Act. Such grievance, as aforesaid, will have to be and ought to be taken before the Tribunal by way of statutory appeal under Section 9 of the Act. As a matter of fact, there is nothing on record to indicate that Shivaji Janrao, after having submitted his letter dated 1st May, 2008, made any grievance, either in writing or, for that matter, orally, to any other office-bearer of the Management or to the school and to the Education Inspector or any other authority. It is the employees’ union which took up his cause, for the first time, in March, 2009 by submitting complaint to the Education Inspector in that behalf on 24th March, 2009. It is on the basis of that complaint the authorities proceeded to consider the matter and issue direction culminating in the impugned order dated 20th June, 2009. 17. However, the Management, after acceptance of the request made by Shivaji Janrao, in his letter dated 1st May, 2008, proceeded to fill in the post of Head Master of the school, which had since been vacated, by appointing Smt. Harsha Trivedi vide appointment letter dated 9th July, 2008 with effect from 1st February, 2008. The said Smt. Harsha Trivedi took over the reins of the Office of the Head Mistress of the school with effect from 1st August, 2008. It is only in March, 2009 the union made complaint in writing to the authorities. In the meantime, however, said Shivaji Janrao not only failed to make grievance before any quarter, but also started working as Assistant Teacher without any demur from 1st August, 2008, as is evident from the circular issued on that day, which has been signed by him. Suffice it to observe that the grievance of Shivaji Janrao, which was espoused by the union, could not be taken forward before the authorities. That grievance could have been made only by way of appeal before the School Tribunal under Section 9 of the Act. 18. From the minutes of the proceedings before the Deputy Director of Education, it is seen that the only reason which weighed with the said Authority to hold against the Management was that the unwillingness to work as Head Master was not given by Shivaji Janrao in writing before the Education Officer. 18. From the minutes of the proceedings before the Deputy Director of Education, it is seen that the only reason which weighed with the said Authority to hold against the Management was that the unwillingness to work as Head Master was not given by Shivaji Janrao in writing before the Education Officer. That was mandatory in terms of Rule 3(3) of the said Rules, which postulate that the willingness has to be given by way of statement in writing to the Education Officer by the employee concerned that he has voluntarily relinquished his claim to that post. 19. Let us examine the matter in the context of this opinion of the Authority. Assuming that it can be a relevant ground for grant or non-grant of approval to the appointment of next incumbent to the post of Head Master of the school. It would be apposite to advert to Rule 3(3), which has been relied by the said Authority. It reads thus:- “3. Qualifications and appointment of Head – (1) .... (a) (i) .... (ii) .... (b) .... (2) .... (3) The Management of a school including a night school shall fill up the post of the Head by appointing the seniormost 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 school (excluding night school) conducted by it] who fulfils the conditions laid down in sub-rule (1) and who has a satisfactory record of service. Explanation. - For the purpose of this rule, the Management shall communicate in occurrence of vacancy of the Head to the senior-most qualified teacher having satisfactory record of service and ask him to submit his willingness for appointment to the post within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of the communication. The claim of the senior-most qualified teacher having satisfactory record of service, for appointment to the post of Head, may be disregarded only if he, of his own free will, gives a statement in writing to the Education Officer that he has voluntarily relinquished his claim to the post. This shall not debar him from being considered for subsequent vacancies as and when they occur. This shall not debar him from being considered for subsequent vacancies as and when they occur. Such a teacher shall record his statement in his own handwriting before the Education Officer within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of the communication as aforesaid and the Education Officer shall endorse it as having been recorded in his presence. A statement once duly made by such teacher before the Education Officer shall not be allowed to be withdrawn. In the event of the teacher failing to submit his willingness for appointment to the post or to give a statement to the Education Officer within a period of fifteen days, it shall be assumed that he has relinquished his clam on the said post: Provided that, where an unforeseen vacancy of Head occurs owing to reasons like resignation without giving due notice, death, termination of services, reduction in rank or otherwise, the senior-most teacher desirous of relinquishing his claim for appointment to the post shall, within seven days from the date of receipt of a communication by him of occurrence of such vacancy from the Management, communicate to the Management in writing about the same so as to enable the Management to finalise the appointment. Such a teacher shall thereafter as soon as possible and in any case within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of the communication as aforesaid record his final statement before the Education Officer to enable him to approve the appointment, or as the case may be, to disapprove the appointment if such teacher states in his statement before the Education Officer that the communication sent by him in writing to the Management was obtained from him by the Management under duress. In the event of the teacher failing to record a final statement within a period of fifteen days as aforesaid it shall be assumed that he has relinquished his claim on the said post;” 20. From the plain language of the above-said Rule, it is noticed that it is a provision ordaining the Management of the school to fill up the post of the head by appointing the senior-most member of the teaching staff, who has a satisfactory record of service. It is not in dispute that Shivaji Janrao was the senior-most teaching staff, and had a satisfactory record of service. It is not in dispute that Shivaji Janrao was the senior-most teaching staff, and had a satisfactory record of service. He was, thus, qualified to be appointed as head of the school. He was so appointed by the Management with effect from 5th November, 2007. After working as the Head Master for over 6 months, he gave in writing to the Management to relieve him from the post of Head Master. In other words, the substantive provision, Rule 3(3), was complied with by the Management after the appointment of Shivaji Janrao as Head Master with effect from 5th November, 2007. In that view of the matter, the Explanation below Rule 3(3), which is the basis, on which the Authority proceeded to decide the controversy, is inapplicable to the fact situation of the present case, as that Explanation ought to apply only at the stage of initial appointment of a person as head of the school. Once the person is appointed as head of the school, but he wants to excuse himself from the said responsibility, the question of requiring him to give a statement in writing to the Education Officer of that intention would be stretching the said provision beyond its intent. The Explanation is only a safeguard provided to ensure that, when eligible senior-most member of the teaching staff is available, and, instead of him, some other person is likely to be appointed as head of the school, who may be junior in position, the Explanation would come into play. The requirement in the Explanation of giving one’s statement in writing to the Education Officer that he intends to voluntarily relinquish his claim to the post of the head of the school, even though he is the senior-most qualified teacher, having satisfactory record of service, is to enable the Education Officer to verify as to whether that unwillingness is of own free will of the employee concerned. The opening part of the Explanation is indicative of that procedure, and is relevant only at the time of initial appointment to the office of Head Master. That provision will have no application to a situation such as the one before us that the person appointed as Head Master, after some time, requests to relieve him of the said responsibility, and allow him to discharge his duty only as Assistant Teacher. That provision will have no application to a situation such as the one before us that the person appointed as Head Master, after some time, requests to relieve him of the said responsibility, and allow him to discharge his duty only as Assistant Teacher. This, however, does not mean that, in a case where the relinquishment from the post after appointment is on account of force or under duress, that grievance cannot be redressed. That grievance can be considered by resorting to appeal under Section 9 of the Act. That grievance cannot be redressed by the authorities of the State. No such power is invested in the authorities. In view of the express language of Section 9, remedy of such person would only be to question such action by way of appeal under Section 9 of the Act, being otherwise termination from the post of Head Master. As is observed earlier, the authorities cannot usurp the power that can be exercised only by the Tribunal, of ordering reinstatement of the employee to his original post. 21. A priori, the direction issued by the Deputy Director of Education, which has culminated in the impugned order dated 20th June, 2009, is without authority of law. It was not open to the said authority to examine the grievance of Shivaji Janrao, of being made to forcibly tender letter dated 1st May, 2008 by some of the office-bearers of the Management. In any case, whether the said letter was given by Shivaji Janrao of his free will or otherwise, for the reasons already indicated above, could not have been examined in the garb of power vested in the Education Officer in the context of Rule 3 (3) of the Rules, which power exists only to verify the genuineness of the unwillingness of the senior-most eligible teacher to accept the post of Head Master at the time of initial appointment, and not for the subsequent unwillingness after the appointment. Once this finding is reached, it would necessarily follow that, so long as Shivaji Janrao has not challenged the otherwise termination from the post of Head Master of the school, that post would become vacant on acceptance of his request by the Management to relieve him from the post of Head Master. Once this finding is reached, it would necessarily follow that, so long as Shivaji Janrao has not challenged the otherwise termination from the post of Head Master of the school, that post would become vacant on acceptance of his request by the Management to relieve him from the post of Head Master. In that event, the Management would be free to appoint another competent person as head of the school by following the procedure prescribed by the extant Regulations and Rules. In the present case, the Management asserts that it proceeded to appoint Smt. Harsha Trivedi as Head Mistress of the school in exercise of powers under Section 3(2) of the Act, being a minority institution. Whether that appointment is in conformity with the norms prescribed or otherwise is a matter which will have to be addressed independently. So far, the authorities have not dealt with the said aspect at all. If that appointment is valid and proper, Smt. Harsha Trivedi would be entitled for all consequential benefits. The authority is expected to consider the proposal submitted by the Management regarding appointment of Smt. Harsha Trivedi on its own merits. 22. It is common ground that there is no provision of law requiring prior approval to be obtained by the Management of minority institution from the Education Department before the appointment of head of the school is made. The power is only to accord approval to the appointment made by the Management, which power has to be exercised in conformity with the norms specified regarding availability of vacancy to be filled in by qualified person. Therefore, in the petition filed by the Management and Smt. Harsha Trivedi, we would only direct the concerned authority to examine the proposal submitted by the Management for according approval to the appointment of Smt. Harsha Trivedi as Head Mistress of the school on its own merits. 23. Insofar as the relief claimed by Smt. Harsha Trivedi, the subsequently appointed Head Mistress of the school, more particularly regarding payment of salary at a particular rate, including as per the scale prescribed by the VIth Pay Commission, we would only observe that, if her appointment is to be approved by the concerned authority, the authority would be obliged to release the grants towards her salary on that basis. Even if the authority were to refuse approval to the appointment of Smt. Harsha Trivedi, that would not absolve the Management from payment of salary due and payable to Smt. Harsha Trivedi for having worked in the school in the capacity of Head Mistress since 1st August, 2008. In other words, irrespective of whether grants are released by the authority towards salary of Smt. Harsha Trivedi, the Management is primarily responsible to pay the amount due and payable to Smt. Harsha Trivedi towards her salary for the relevant period. To that extent, the petition of Smt. Harsha Trivedi ought to succeed. 24. However, it may not be possible for us to direct the Management or, for that matter, the authorities to release grants towards her salary on the basis of pay-scale prescribed by the VIth Pay Commission. So long as the State Government has not extended the VIth Pay Commission pay-scale to the teaching and non-teaching employees of the private aided schools, the employees of such schools cannot claim that pay-scale. In other words, on and from the date VIth Pay Commission is made applicable by the State Government to the teaching staff of the private, aided schools, the Government would be liable to release grants towards salary of the teaching employees on commensurate basis. In the present case, since the school is a private, aided school, Smt. Harsha Trivedi would be entitled for pay-scale as is applicable for the present. Until then, the Management would be liable to pay salary to her for having worked in the capacity of Head Mistress of the school with effect from 1st August, 2008 on the basis of existing applicable pay-scale. 25. We may now turn to other grievance of Shivaji Janrao. According to him, the appointment order of Harsha Trivedi is silent about the resignation of earlier incumbent, Shivaji Janrao, from the post of Head Master. We fail to understand as to how this would make any difference. The fact remains that the request made by Shivaji Janrao to allow him to revert back to the post of Assistant Teacher, as stated in his communication dated 1st May, 2008, was accepted by the Management on 20th May, 2008. Only thereafter, the Management started the process of appointment of another person as Head Master of the school, which post had become vacant. Only thereafter, the Management started the process of appointment of another person as Head Master of the school, which post had become vacant. Suffice it to observe that non-mention of that event in the appointment letter of the new incumbent, who has been appointed as Head Mistress of the school, would not militate against her appointment. 26. The argument canvassed on behalf of Shivaji Janrao was that the Management forwarded the proposal regarding the appointment of Harsha Trivedi belatedly. We fail to understand as to how that would make any difference. Assuming that there is delay in submitting proposal regarding the appointment of Smt. Harsha Trivedi, that would not create any right in favour of Shivaji Janrao, who had already withdrawn himself from the post of Head Master. Once it is held that neither the Education Inspector nor the Deputy Director of Education was competent to go into the validity of the factum of purported resignation given by Shivaji Janrao, all other grievances of Shivaji Janrao would recede to the background. It would be a different matter that Shivaji Janrao were to challenge his otherwise termination from the post of Head Master before the competent forum and succeed in that challenge. Only in that case, the appointment of Smt. Harsha Trivedi can be questioned by him. This does not mean that the Appropriate Authority is obliged to accord approval to the appointment of Smt. Harsha Trivedi, as a matter of course. That proposal will have to be considered on its own merits, in accordance with law, which has not been done so far by the concerned authority. All questions in that behalf are left open. 27. In view of the above, we proceed to pass the following order:- (1) Writ Petition No. 1315 of 2009 is partly allowed on the following terms:- (a) The impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Education dated 20th June, 2009 (Exhibit ‘V’) is quashed and set aside. (b) The Appropriate Authority shall examine the proposal submitted by the Management for grant of approval to the appointment of Smt. Harsha Trivedi as Head Mistress with effect from 1st August, 2008; and, depending on the outcome of the decision on the said proposal, issue appropriate direction for release of salary due and payable to Smt. Harsha Trivedi for the relevant period. All questions relating to the issue of grant or non-grant of approval to the appointment of Smt. Harsha Trivedi as Head Mistress of the school are left open to be considered on its own merits. (2) Writ Petition No. 2409 of 2010 also partly succeeds in the following terms:- (a) In addition to the relief granted in the petition filed by the Management, the Management is directed to pay salary for the relevant period from 1st August, 2008 to Smt. Harsha Trivedi for having worked on the post of Head Mistress of the school as per the existing applicable pay-scale, irrespective of the outcome of the decision on the proposal for approval to her appointment on that post. .(b) On and from the date when the State Government applies the pay-scale prescribed as per the VIth Pay Commission to the teaching staff of aided, private schools, Smt. Harsha Trivedi would be entitled to receive pay-scale on that basis for the relevant period. (c) The Management shall forthwith pay the arrears of salary to Smt. Harsha Trivedi on the above basis, if already not paid, subject to adjustment, if any, within three months from today. The Management shall pay the future monthly salary due and payable to Smt. Harsha Trivedi, till she is employed on the post of Head Mistress of the school, on the above basis. The Management would become entitled to get reimbursement from the State in the event the approval to the appointment of Smt. Harsha Trivedi is accorded by the Appropriate Authority, but not otherwise. (3) Both the writ petitions are disposed of in the above terms, with no order as to costs. (4) The companion Notice of Motion is also disposed of accordingly. 28. At this stage, the counsel for Shivaji Janrao prays for stay of operation of this judgment and order for a period of eight weeks from today to enable him to carry the matter in appeal. This request is opposed by the counsel for the Management. According to Shivaji Janrao, he is presently working as Head Master. This statement is refuted by the counsel for the Management on instructions. According to the Management, Smt. Harsha Trivedi is the Head Mistress of the school and Shivaji Janrao has been allowed only to sign the salary bills in terms of the order passed by this Court in the present proceedings. This statement is refuted by the counsel for the Management on instructions. According to the Management, Smt. Harsha Trivedi is the Head Mistress of the school and Shivaji Janrao has been allowed only to sign the salary bills in terms of the order passed by this Court in the present proceedings. In the circumstances, the question of staying the operation of our judgment and order as prayed does not arise. At the request of Shivaji Janrao, we may, however, direct the parties to continue the present arrangement of signing the salary bills for a period of four weeks from today.