Marlapalle B. H., J. - (1.)This petition arises from the judgment and order dated 29/1/1998 rendered by the School Tribunal at Pune thereby allowing Appeal No. 43 of 1996 filed by the original respondent-appellant. By the said order the appointment of petitioner No. 3 on promotion as Supervisor with effect from 3/6/1992 and as Head Master with effect from 1/2/1997 and the appointment of petitioner No. 4 on promotion as Supervisor on 1/3/1997 have been set aside and the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 have been directed to appoint the appellant on promotion as Supervisor with effect from 3/6/1992 and as Head Master with effect from 1/2/1997 with arrears of backwages. During the pendency of this petition, the appellant died and, therefore, the only issue that remains to be considered is regarding arrears of wages on the basis of the promotions directed by the School Tribunal.
(2.)The appellant was possessing qualification of M.A. B.Ed, and came to be appointed with effect from 12/8/1974 but in the D.Ed.scale, whereas the petitioner No. 3 who possesses the qualification of B.Sc. B.Ed. came to be appointed as a trained graduate teacher with effect from 9/6/1975 and the petitioner No. 4 with the same qualification came to be appointed as a trained graduate teacher with effect from 24/6/1976. As per the petitioners though the appellant was making representations for being appointed as a trained graduate teacher, there was no vacancy for secondary school teacher's post except in Science subject and the appellant did not possess the said qualifications. Therefore, on the first available vacancy of Assistant Teacher to teach English, she was appointed as a trained graduate teacher with effect from 1 /1 /1977. The petitioners, therefore, claimed that the appellant was junior to petitioner Nos. 3 and 4. The seniority list was drawn by the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and the same was approved by the Education Officer vide his letter dated 26/5/1988. The appellant had submitted representations against the seniority and the said representations were decided by the Management vide its reply dated 21/8/1987. As per the petitioners, petitioner No. 3 was rightly appointed by promotion to the post of Supervisor with effect from 3/6/1992 and to the post of Head Master during the pendency of the Appeal and with effect from 1/2/1997. The petitioner No. 4 being senior to the appellant he was appointed by promotion to the post of Supervisor with effect from 1/3/1997 as the petitioner No. 3 had vacated the said post on his promotion. The School Tribunal by the impugned order has held that the appellant was the senior most teacher irrespective of her appointment in the D.Ed. scale initially and, therefore, allowed the appeal by following the judgment of this Court (D.B.) in the case of (Saramma Varghese Vs. Secretary/ President S.I.C.E.S. Society), 1990(1) Bom.C.R. 185.
(3.)Mr. Dani, in support of this petition, has raised mainly two issues i.e.
(a) the appeal filed by the appellant suffered from delay and latches and the School Tribunal was not justified in condoning the delay caused, and

(b) the appellant's seniority as a trained graduate teacher ought to have been counted only from 1/1/1977 and not from initial date of appointment i.e. 12/8/1974.

It was also submitted by Mr. Dani that in any case the seniority list published by the management was approved by the Education Officer and the promotions were effected strictly by following the said seniority list, the promotion orders were also approved by the Education Officer and, therefore, even if the appellant was required to be promoted, it was not legal and proper on the part of the School Tribunal to order the payment of arrears more so when petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 had actually worked in the post of Supervisor and Head Master, as the case may be and the management was not guilty of any act of victimisation or mala fides.