JUDGMENT
Dharmadhikari B.P., J.
1. In this Writ Petition, challenge is to the judgment of School Tribunal dated 4.4.1996 by which the School Tribunal rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner, holding that as present respondent No. 2 was senior to him, the respondent No. 2 was rightly promoted as Head Master. The promotion has been given on 10.7.1992. It is admitted position that the respondent No. 2 was possessing the necessary qualification on 10.7.1992.
2. Advocate Kothale, for petitioner contends that the petitioner was also qualified on 10.7.1992, if the petitioner is accepted to have joined the services on 1.7.1987. He contends that the Management has deliberately shown that petitioner has joined the services on 1.8.1987 and therefore, he does not possess the qualification as required by Rule 3(1)(b) of the M.E.P.S Rules, 1981. He has, invited attention to the seniority list in which the date of joining of petitioner is shown as 1.7.1987, and it is further mentioned that, he has passed his B.Ed, examination on 10.9.1987. He states that if this position is accepted, in July 1992, when the Management considered promotion, the petitioner was senior most eligible candidate available for the said promotion. He states that the respondent No. 2 who has been given that promotion acquired his training qualification on 10.7.1990, and therefore, he was not completing two years of post training service, before the petitioner. According to him, entire exercise has been undertaken by the Management only with a view to promote the respondent No. 2. He also invites attention to the resolution passed by the Management in this respect on 4.7.1992 to contend that on 4.7.1992, the respondent No. 2 was not at all holding the necessary qualifications. He further argues that the petitioner also attempted to obtain authentic seniority list from the office of the Education Officer, but that effort was not allowed by the School Tribunal. He invites attention to his appointment order to show that it has been issued on 1.7.1987, and is also received by the petitioner on the same date. He contends that the School Tribunal has merely relied upon the xerox copy of the muster for the month of July 1987 and has concluded that the petitioner was not in service in July 1987. He argues that the said xerox copy is a fabricated and tampered document.
3. As against this, Advocate Saboo, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 contends that the name of petitioner has been entered in the muster only from August, 1987 because he joined on 1.8.1987. He further states that even service book prepared by the Management shows the date of joining as 1.8.1987. According to him, there was no challenge to the xerox copy of the muster for the month of July, 1987 produced by the respondent before the School Tribunal or even before this Court. In such circumstances, he states that a finding of fact has been arrived at by the School Tribunal, which cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction.
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 supports the impugned order.
5. After hearing all the Counsel, it is apparent that the petitioner becomes eligible for promotion only if it is held that he joined the services on 1.7.1987. The petitioner was also aware of this burden and therefore, the petitioner ought to have made positive efforts to show that he joined on 1.7.1987. The only effort made by the petitioner before the School Tribunal is calling for seniority list from the office of the Education Department. The seniority list which the petitioner has produced on record vide Annexure-III, shows that he was appointed on 1.7.1987. However, before the School Tribunal the documents were produced to show that the petitioner did not joined on 1.7.1987 and he joined on 1.8.1987. The authenticity of those documents was not questioned before the School Tribunal. The said authenticity is not questioned before this Court also in the present writ petition by the petitioner. The petitioner could have called upon the management to produce his joining report. But, that has not been done and the management has also not produced the joining report. In these circumstances, when the School Tribunal has accepted the xerox copy of the muster for July 1987 and August 1987 and has based finding upon it, the said application of mind cannot be labelled as perverse or erroneous. I find no jurisdictional error in it. The arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for petitioner therefore do not show any necessity warranting interference in writ jurisdiction. Writ petition is thus dismissed. Rule discharged.