LAWS(BOM)-1993-11-14

MADHAVGOVINDRAO BUDHE Vs. EDUCATION OFFICER ZILLA PARISHAD NAGPUR

Decided On November 04, 1993
MADHAV, GOVINDRAO BUDHE Appellant
V/S
EDUCATION OFFICER, ZILLA PARISHAD, NAGPUR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these petitions can be conveniently disposed of by this common Judgment as they are filled at the instance of the same petitioner. In Writ Petition No. 2300 of 1990 the petitioner prays for a wit of Mandamus for quashing and setting aside the Order passed by the Education officer dated 21. 8. 1990. The respondent No. 1 - Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur, has, by the impugned order, held the respondent No. 3 - Mrs. Nirmala Barokar to be senior than the petitioner. Similarly, in Writ Petition No. 1762 of 1993, the same petitioner challenges the Order dated 30-3-1991 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur, in his capacity as the regional Director of Municipal Administration, Nagpur. In that Order, the Regional Director of municipal Administration has allowed the revision application filed by the respondent No. 3 -Mrs. Nirmala Barokar and held that she is senior to the petitioner. It is on this account that both the petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THERE is a chequered history to the litigation in these two petitions. It dates back to the appointment of the petitioner, who was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the Secondary school on 31. 7. 1956 by an order dated 30. 7. 1956. He was thereafter continued upto dated 9. 7. 1957 without any break vide office order dated 9-7-1957. In 1962, the petitioner passed in diploma in Teaching and on that basis he was confirmed on 5. 7. 1967. The petitioner further acquired the qualification of graduation by passing B. A. in the year 1967 and ultimately he proceeded to acquire further qualification by passing B. Ed. examination in the year 1970. In this comparison, it will be better to give the educational qualifications and travel during the service on the part of the respondent No. 3, who joined in the school directly on 15. 7. 1968. She was then already a fully qualified teacher having passed B. A. examination in the year 1961 and B. Ed. examination in the year 1968. The admitted position, therefore, is that on 15. 7. 1968, the respondent No. 3 was a fully qualified teacher for teaching high school classes. There is some dispute as to whether she was appointed as a middle school teacher and continued to be a middle school teacher, but the perusal of her service book, which is produced during the hearing, clearly shows that she was throughout treated as a high school teacher. There came a question of the inter se seniority between the two for the first time when the question of appointing a supervisor in the school arose. The first seniority list was published and in the seniority list prepared by the municipal Council, the petitioner was shown as senior to the respondent No. 3. Both of them had been shown in the same category of "c". The petitioner had been shown at serial number 1 while the respondent No. 3 had been shown at serial Number 3 with one Shri K. P. Chopkar in between.

(3.) THIS was questioned by the respondent No. 3 before the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, nagpur who passed an Order on 23. 7. 1986 holding the respondent No. 3 as senior to the petitioner. However, the Municipal Council thereafter took a typical stand and wrote back to the education Officer that since the respondent No. 3 had signed the seniority list without any grudge, she was deemed to have accepted the said seniority list and, therefore, she could not be considered for the appointment as a supervisor. Thereafter, the Education Officer, it seems, heard both the parties, namely, the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 3 and held that the petitioner was senior to the respondent NO. 3.