CHHANNOOLAL NAVIN VIDYA BHAVAN TEACHERS EDUCATION SOCIETY GANDHIBAGH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners take exception to the order dated 10.11.2006 passed by the Education Officer (Secondary), thereby adjudicating the dispute pertaining to inter-se seniority between the petitioner no.2 and the respondent no.4.

(2.) The facts relevant for deciding the challenges as raised are that the petitioner no.1-Education Society is running a school which imparts education to students from standards 5 th to 10th. On 28.07.1998 an advertisement was issued seeking to appoint Assistant Teachers. One post was earmarked for a Lower Division Teacher for standards 5th to 7th and one post earmarked for Upper Division Teacher for standards 8 th to 10th. The petitioner no.2 having qualifications of M.A., B.Ed came to be appointed on 01.08.1998 as Lower Division Teacher for teaching students of standards 5 th to 7th. On the same day, the respondent no.4 having qualifications of B.Sc, B.Ed. was appointed as Upper Division Teacher to impart education to students for standards 8 th to 10th. In the combined seniority list the petitioner no.2 was shown as senior to the respondent no.4 though both of them were appointed on the same date for the reason that the petitioner no.2 was senior in age to the respondent no.4. After retirement of the Head Mistress, the petitioner no.2 on 01.08.2006 was appointed In-charge Head Mistress and approval was sought in that regard from the Education Officer (Secondary). The petitioner no.2 was granted administrative and financial powers vide communication dated 03.10.2006. A dispute arose between the petitioner no.2 and the respondent no.4 as regards their inter-se seniority. The Education Officer (Secondary) after hearing both sides passed an order on 10.11.2006 and held that the initial appointment of the petitioner no.2 in the primary section was as an untrained teacher. As the petitioner no.2 entered Category 'C' after the respondent no.4 entered the same, it was held that the respondent no.4 was senior in service than the petitioner no.2. Being aggrieved, the said order has been challenged in the present writ petition.

(3.) Shri Devdatta Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Education Officer (Secondary) misdirected himself by treating the petitioner no.2 as an untrained teacher when she was initially appointed on 01.08.1998. The petitioner no.2 having acquired qualifications of M.A, B.Ed. while entering service and she being senior in age to the respondent no.4, she was rightly shown as senior to the respondent no.4 in Category 'C'. Government Resolution dated 25.06.1992 was wrongly relied upon by the Education Officer while passing the impugned order. Placing reliance on the decision in Lakhwinder Kaur Gurai Vs. Garison Children Education Society and others, 2006 (5) Mh.L.J.332 , it was submitted that the entitlement of the petitioner no.2 could not have been defeated by relying upon the said Government Resolution. He also placed reliance on the decision in Saramma Varghese Vs. Secretary/President 1989 Mh. L. J. 951 to submit that though the petitioner no.2 and the respondent no.4 were appointed on the same day, the petitioner no.2 being senior in age was rightly treated by the Management as being senior to the respondent no.4. He also referred to the judgment dated 28.11.2019 in Writ Petition No. 5168/2017 (Subhash Daulatrao Warkhokar Vs. Vishwas Education Society and others) as well as Circulars dated 11.11.2011 and 03.05.2019 to substantiate his contentions. He therefore submitted that on a proper consideration of the statutory provisions, it was clear that the petitioner no.2 was senior in service to the respondent no.4.