JUDGMENT B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. - Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Writ Petition No. 7037 of 2016 was disposed of by this Court on 03.07.2018 after taking note of the delaying tactics adopted by the petitioners. Thereafter CAW No. 1621 of 2018 has been filed by the original petitioners for recall of that order and CAW No. 1622 of 2018 was simultaneously filed seeking leave to amend the disposed of petition. Within a week thereafter, CAO No. 1240 of 2018 came to be filed for continuing the interim orders which stayed the implementation of the impugned order dated 01.10.2016 in writ petition. All these applications are being strongly opposed by the respondents. 3. The respondents submitted that the arguments in writ petition were heard on 26.06.2018 and 28.06.2018. At that juncture, without obtaining any leave of the Court an additional affidavit was filed and thereafter CAW No. 1468 of 2018 was filed, seeking leave to produce additional documents without applying for any amendment. Respondent No. 2 complained that the matter was admitted for final hearing on 15.01.2018 because it could not be disposed of finally on account of similar attitude then exhibited by the petitioners. This Court then however, vacated interim order. The Hon''ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 2219 of 2018 found that the petitioners should have been allowed to continue as Head Mistress as she had already put in more than 22 years, as such. The High Court was expected to dispose of writ petition by the end of the year i.e. 2018. 4. Because of this order of the Hon''ble Apex Court dated 16.02.2018, hearing could commence expeditiously on 26.06.2018 which ultimately resulted in passing the order mentioned supra on 03.07.2018. The order dated 03.07.2018 shows developments in the matter. Though the order has not been still recalled and writ petition is not restored, the parties agreed to place their written notes of arguments on merits. The petitioners accordingly have placed on record written notes of arguments on 27.08.2018. Respondent No. 2, who is affected party, filed a reply to the application for recall of order on 02.08.2018. The reply opposing said application was filed on 08.08.2018. It is in this backdrop that on 31.08.2018, we closed the matter for orders. 5. On 24.08.2018 in this matter, we have passed the following order : "1. Respondent No. 2, who is affected party, filed a reply to the application for recall of order on 02.08.2018. The reply opposing said application was filed on 08.08.2018. It is in this backdrop that on 31.08.2018, we closed the matter for orders. 5. On 24.08.2018 in this matter, we have passed the following order : "1. Only to expedite consideration of matter and in view of specific opposition by respondents that petitioner is interested only in interim orders, we have permitted parties to place on record their written notes on merits without looking into the merits of these applications. 2. Today original petitioner (applicant in above applications) is placing written notes of argument on record. Learned Advocate Mr. Mirza for respondent no. 2 is seeking time of one week to place written notes of respondents on record. 3. In this situation, list for further consideration on 31st August 2018." In view of this order, written notes of arguments are placed on record by the petitioners on 27.08.2018. 6. As the matter was admitted for final hearing and petitioner No. 1 did continue as Head Mistress till vacation of interim orders by us on 03.07.2018, we found it appropriate to extend an opportunity to the petitioners and considered the written notes. We have also looked into the documents filed along with the application for amendment of writ petition 1. e. CAW No. 1622 of 2018. The impugned order in Writ Petition (Annexure ''P'') dated 01.10.2016 takes note of the fact that Petitioner No. 1 - Kalpana was not in employment from 20.06.1991 to 28.02.1992 and of fact that despite this break, her date of entry into service has been shown as 25.06.1987. Her service book also demonstrated that her employment from 01.03.1992 till 30.04.1992 was in leave vacancy. The Education Officer who passed that order also noted that while appointing Kalpana in unaided School in 1987, though an advertisement was disclosed, name of the Newspaper was suppressed and that advertisement was of the year 1988. The proceedings of interview, if any, conducted after that advertisement were not supplied to the Education Department. The Education Department granted approval to her appointment on probation for the first time for the period from 01.05.1992 and permanent approval from 01.05.1994. On 21.03.1995, her placement as Head Mistress with effect from 01.05.1993 was approved. The proceedings of interview, if any, conducted after that advertisement were not supplied to the Education Department. The Education Department granted approval to her appointment on probation for the first time for the period from 01.05.1992 and permanent approval from 01.05.1994. On 21.03.1995, her placement as Head Mistress with effect from 01.05.1993 was approved. Thus, before she was confirmed as Assistant Teacher, she was made Head Mistress. The documents did not disclose that it was by direct recruitment and requirement of experience as per Rule 3(2) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, (hereinafter referred to as 1981 Rules) was relaxed. The advertisement produced by the management to support appointment of Kalpana as Head Mistress is dated 16.06.1993 and she was given that post prior to it i.e. from 01.05.1993. 7. Then the Education Officer has looked into the fact of appointment and qualification of respondent No. 2 and found that respondent No. 2 was/ is senior to Petitioner No. 1 -Kalpana. The Education Officer also noted that respondent No. 2 did not challenge her supersession and though the management obtained ''No objection'' from respondent No. 2, relinquishment of seniority and claim of post of Head Mistress was not verified by the Education Officer. In para 18 of his conclusions, the Education Officer has found that there were some inconsistencies in the records showing date of entry into employment of both petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2. In operative part, it found that petitioner No. 1 - Kalpana was not validly recruited and hence approval to her employment from 25.06.1987 to 1990-91 has been declined. Similarly, as the provisions of Rule 3(1)(2) and (3) of 1981 Rules are found to be violated, approval given to her posting as Head Mistress came to be cancelled. 8. In petition before this Court or in written notes of arguments filed thereafter, petitioner No. 1 - Kalpana is not assailing any finding in relation to respondent No. 2 -Smt. Lalita V. Halmare. The petitioner contends that cognizance by the Education Officer is on a complaint made by a stranger i.e. respondent No. 4 and respondent No. 2 had never made any grievance, hence, the objection itself was not maintainable. To support this argument, petitioners rely upon the judgment in the case of Pramod V. Ambatkar & Anr. v. Dy. The petitioner contends that cognizance by the Education Officer is on a complaint made by a stranger i.e. respondent No. 4 and respondent No. 2 had never made any grievance, hence, the objection itself was not maintainable. To support this argument, petitioners rely upon the judgment in the case of Pramod V. Ambatkar & Anr. v. Dy. Director of Education, Amravati & Anr., reported at 2013 (4) Mh. L.J. 657. Along with the application for amendment, the petitioners have produced advertisement published in 1987. It is claimed that the advertisement appeared in daily Newspaper by name "Lokmat" on 13.06.1987. The petitioner No. 1 claims that she has purchased copy of that Newspaper on 24.08.2017. The effort, therefore, is to rebut the finding in the impugned order that though petitioner No. 1 is shown to have entered service in 1987, the advertisement was issued in 1988. The other emphasis in written notes of arguments is on condoning the break in service from 20.08.1991 to 28.02.1992. It is claimed that proposal for condoning that break is pending with the Education department. It is further submitted that petitioner No. 1 - Kalpana had five years teaching experience and, therefore, petitioner No. 2 - management rightly appointed her as Head Mistress. It is further submitted that in this situation, if the Education Officer felt that there was some error in granting approval as Head Mistress by the Deputy Director of Education, he should have forwarded the papers to said office which is superior and could not have himself cancelled that approval. Respondent No. 1 does not possess such jurisdiction or then power to review the order of superior. 9. To substantiate the stand that petitioner No. 1 - Kalpana had necessary experience of five years and breaks could have been condoned, the support is being taken from the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mrs. M.N. More v. Mrs. Sumangala w/o Manoharrao Sakharkar & Ors., reported at 2018 (3) All MR 614. It is submitted that as held therein, in present matter breaks were condoned by the employer and, therefore, consequential acceptance thereof by the Education Officer was not improper. 10. The petitioner in petition itself has pleaded that her appointment order is dated 20.06.1987. She has filed in petition a receipt at Annexure ''A'' which shows that advertisement was published in ''Lokmat'' Newspaper. 10. The petitioner in petition itself has pleaded that her appointment order is dated 20.06.1987. She has filed in petition a receipt at Annexure ''A'' which shows that advertisement was published in ''Lokmat'' Newspaper. There are two cash receipts of Rs. 175/each with the same number with date 11.06.1987 upon it, however, the advertisement as such was not then filed. This is after specific finding by the Education Officer that the advertisement was published in 1988 and no advertisement published in 1987 existed. At Annexure ''B'' with the petition is appointment order and thereafter at Annexure ''C'' is an advertisement in daily ''Lokmat''. This advertisement is for the post of Principal and candidates were asked to remain present for interview on 21.06.1993. On this advertisement by hand date 16.06.1993 has been put. In this backdrop, when the written notes are seen, petitioner No. 1 - Kalpana mentions that she came to be appointed on 20.06.1987, however, she has not said anything about the advertisement. Along with the plea for amendment, the receipt issued by ''Lokmat'' daily Newspaper on 24.08.2017 is filed and Petitioner No. 1 claims that same is for purchased copy of ''Lokmat'' dated 13.06.1987. That receipt is for Rs. 15,080/. At next page is advertisement and the advertisement is for various posts including Teacher and Head Mistress. As per this advertisement, interviews were scheduled on 21.06.1987. It, therefore, follows that on the basis of this advertisement, petitioner No. 1 - Kalpana could not have been appointed on 20.06.1987. This discussion, therefore, supports the findings of the Education Officer that petitioner No. 1 - Kalpana did not enter the service in accordance with law. 11. The appointment orders issued to Kalpana show that she continued on session to session basis and an order appointing her on probation was issued after 01.05.1992. The School management did not produce necessary documents and pointed out to the Education department that while shifting School, the documents were misplaced. She, therefore, occupied permanent post for the first time on 01.05.1992. 12. The Education Officer has recorded the submission of Kalpana that she was appointed in leave vacancy from 01.03.1992 to 30.04.1992. She then has disclosed that Sou. Halmare (Ku. Tijare) i.e. present respondent No. 2 proceeded on maternity leave and hence she was given work. She was earlier terminated on 20.06.1991. 12. The Education Officer has recorded the submission of Kalpana that she was appointed in leave vacancy from 01.03.1992 to 30.04.1992. She then has disclosed that Sou. Halmare (Ku. Tijare) i.e. present respondent No. 2 proceeded on maternity leave and hence she was given work. She was earlier terminated on 20.06.1991. Thus, in any case, after 20.06.1991 up to 01.05.1992, she was not occupying any substantive post permanently. This consideration by the Education Officer or facts disclosed to him by petitioner No. 1 - Kalpana are not disputed before us at any point of time. 13. The Education Officer also noted that Kalpana before her marriage was known as Kalpana d/o Vasantrao Masurkar and after her marriage on 10.07.1988, service book was prepared in her marital name i.e. Sou. K.D. Mungale. The Education Officer has concluded that for alleged service in unaided School from 25.06.1987 to 20.06.1991, no proposal was submitted for approval at any point of time. 14. The School started receiving grantinaid on 16.06.1993. Petitioner No. 1 - Kalpana in her written notes of arguments states that after this, an advertisement was published to fill in the post of Head Master. That advertisement is dated 16.06.1993 and in written notes, the petitioner has accepted this date. However, she has also stated that she was appointed as Head Mistress on 30.04.1993 i.e. prior to advertisement. These facts, therefore, clearly show that the petitioner entered service for the first time as probationer on 01.05.1992 and that entry does not enable her to aspire for the post of Head Mistress. Even before completion of period of probation, she was made Head Mistress on 30.04.1993 and the Deputy Director of Education granted approval to that post from 01.05.1993 onwards. The petitioner has not taken any pains to explain this anomaly or proposal sent by her employer on 03.05.1994 seeking approval to her posting as Upper Division Teacher. 15. When petitioner No. 1 - Kalpana worked in leave vacancy of respondent No. 2, it is apparent that respondent No. 2 was working in substantive capacity against a permanent post of respondent No. 2 and petitioner No. 1 - Kalpana could have occupied any such post only after her appointment on probation. She, therefore, is junior to respondent No. 2. 16. She, therefore, is junior to respondent No. 2. 16. The facts looked into by the Education Officer and also by us supra show apparent anomalies and inconsistencies which disentitle petitioner No. 1 to any relief in this jurisdiction. 17. The judgment in the case of Pramod V. Ambatkar & Anr. v. Dy. Director of Education, Amravati & Anr. (supra) shows that the petitioner Pramod in that matter was promoted as Head Master and approval given to that promotion was stayed by the Education Officer because of Resolution passed by an association by name Vidarbha Madhyamik Sangathana. The Division Bench found that said Sangathana had no right to pass such resolution or to object to promotion. As said Sangathana laked locus, the Division Bench quashed the order granting stay, passed by the Education Officer. 18. The judgment in Shri M.N. More v. Mrs. Sumangala w/o Manoharrao Sakharkar & Ors., (supra) shows a finding that the management also can condone the break in service and Government Resolution dated 10.05.1989 nowhere shows that power cannot be exercised by the employer. This Court has found that when such condonation of break in service affects pension amount, the power to condone such break is given to the Deputy Director of Education. This judgment, therefore, does not have any impact on present consideration. Resolution dated 10.05.1989 does not waive need of a valid entry into employment. 19. The judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Alka Rameshrao Patil v. Nutan Mahila Sarvodaya Balvikas Sanstha, Pachora, 2009 ALL MR (3) 858, shows that in order to be eligible for the post of Head Master, total five years experience is necessary and Rule 3 of 1981 Rules, does not mandate that such experience has to be continuous. Again, this ruling has got no relevance in present facts where service from June 1987 till up to 20.06.1991 is not established. 20. Thus, the employment of petitioner No. 1 from 1987 till June 1991 is itself in dispute. The break in service is from June 1991 to February 1992 as claimed by her. However, thereafter on 01.03.1992 till 30.04.1992 she has worked in leave vacancy of respondent No. 2. Her work against a permanent sanctioned clear post has begun only from 01.05.1992. Thus, the employment of petitioner No. 1 from 1987 till June 1991 is itself in dispute. The break in service is from June 1991 to February 1992 as claimed by her. However, thereafter on 01.03.1992 till 30.04.1992 she has worked in leave vacancy of respondent No. 2. Her work against a permanent sanctioned clear post has begun only from 01.05.1992. The entries in her service book are not found credit worthy and in this situation, when her appointment itself begins from 01.05.1992, the contention that service rendered prior thereto or experience then acquired must be looked into, cannot be accepted. The appointment even as Assistant Teacher on 20.06.1987 is not supported by proper advertisement. Her posting as Head Mistress is also not supported by appropriate advertisement and not as per law. 21. Though, respondent No. 2 did not object to her promotion as Head Mistress, the facts above demonstrate that petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 have acted highhandedly in the matter. Respondent No. 2 has opposed the petition. She has even opposed petitioner No. 1 -Kalpana, during hearing in the office of the Education Officer. The petitioner has in written notes of arguments not attempted to explain inconsistencies and on the contrary has added to it. The facts on record show attitude of the petitioners to somehow see that petitioner No. 1 - Kalpana continues as Head Mistress as long as possible. 22. During hearing before the Education Officer, Kalpana was questioned about break in service and then she told that in the year 1990-91 she was on leave and that absence has been treated as extraordinary leave. The petitioners then could not produce any material in support of this submission. In relation to break from June 1991 to February 1992, it was claimed that said break was condoned by the management and proposal was submitted to the department. 23. In written notes of arguments, petitioner No. 1 - Kalpana submits that on 02.03.1995, respondent No. 2 and other Teachers gave in writing their ''No objection'' for appointing petitioner No. 1 - Kalpana as Head Mistress and because of that ''No objection'', on 21.03.1995 the Education Officer approved her appointment as Head Mistress. When the School is receiving grantinaid and salary is disbursed through public revenue, the petitioners have to demonstrate that she entered service validly. As that has not been done, these "No objections" are not relevant. When the School is receiving grantinaid and salary is disbursed through public revenue, the petitioners have to demonstrate that she entered service validly. As that has not been done, these "No objections" are not relevant. Moreover, the finding that said ''No objection'' needed to be recorded in writing in presence of and verified by the Education Officer and this procedure has not been followed, is again not shown to be erroneous or perverse. 24. The petitioners claim that the proposal to condone break in service from 20.06.1991 to 28.02.1992 is pending with the department. This was not disclosed to the Education Officer at the time of hearing on 01.10.2016. The proceedings of earlier hearing dated 26.02.2014 show that then the Education Officer had found similar errors and, therefore, cancelled approval to posting of petitioner No. 1 as Head Mistress. This order was set aside on 21.01.2015 in Writ Petition No. 2469 of 2014 by High Court on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. That order reveals finding reached after hearing the management. The management then submitted that there was no approval to appointment of petitioner No. 1 - Kalpana between 25.06.1987 till 20.06.1991 and no such proposal was submitted. No records could be produced by the management at that time and the same were lost. Petitioner No. 1 Kalpana then had disclosed that she was not in employment from 28.06.1991 till 28.02.1992 as her services were terminated and that break in employment was not condoned. When original documents are not available and no proposal for approval was submitted for service allegedly rendered between 1987 to 1991, the contention that break is continued, is liable to be rejected. 25. It is to be noted that during hearing of Writ Petition No. 2469 of 2014, respondent No. 2 gave no objection for setting aside the impugned order of the Education Officer. But then these findings show that break in service of petitioner No. 1 was not condoned at least till 26.02.2014. The break appears to have been condoned vide Resolution dated 09.03.2014. It is after above mentioned order of the Education Officer and its setting aside by this Court. The management can act only through a resolution and no such resolution of any earlier date is pleaded by the petitioners. The break appears to have been condoned vide Resolution dated 09.03.2014. It is after above mentioned order of the Education Officer and its setting aside by this Court. The management can act only through a resolution and no such resolution of any earlier date is pleaded by the petitioners. The earlier orders passed by this Court on 21.01.2015 and thereafter on 25.07.2016 in Writ Petitions at the instance of the petitioners and participation without any reservation in hearings before the Education Officer, estops them from contending that the Education Officer cannot review the order or then the Deputy Director of Education had approved posting of petitioner No. 1 on 21.03.1995. However, the employer - management sent a proposal on 03.05.1994 and sought approval to Kalpana''s appointment as Upper Division Teacher and it is started from 01.05.1994. All these inconsistencies show that petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hand. 26. As we are satisfied that the petitioners do not establish entry of petitioner No. 1 -Kalpana as per law into employment as Assistant Teacher in 1987 or thereafter as Head Mistress on 30.04.1993, we find nothing wrong with the order passed by us on 03.07.2018 dismissing writ petition for want of prosecution. The petitioners have not shown any cause for not effectively assisting the Court on 03.07.2018. On the contrary, the developments show that the petition was allowed to be dismissed and thereafter immediately efforts have been made to revive it and interim order. This conduct supports the contention of respondent No. 2 that the petitioner No. 2 wanted petitioner No. 1 to continue as Head Mistress, though she is not legally entitled to occupy that post. 27. In this situation, we are not inclined to recall the order dated 03.07.2018. Consequently, all applications are rejected. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 28. At this stage, Shri Ghare, learned counsel seeks continuation of interim order granted by the Hon''ble Supreme Court on 16.02.2018. He, however, fairly accepts that, that order was not in force after writ petition was disposed of on 03.07.2018. 29. In this situation, the request cannot be granted.