N A KHAN Vs. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri. Haq, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri. Mehadia, learned Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Mrs. Dangre, learned Assistant government Pleader for the respondent no. 3.

(2.) Shri. Haq, learned Counsel for the petitioner, states that on 28-7-1959 the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the primary School run by the respondent no. 1 municipal Council. The petitioner served in the said School till 3-8-1960. On 4-8-1960, the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant teacher in the Municipal Mahatma Gandhi vidyalaya run by the respondent no. 1 Municipal council. The petitioner was given a technical break from 1-5-1961 to 30-6-1961 (vacation period) and for the period from 1-5-1962 to 1- 7-1962 (vacation and transfer period). It is submitted that Chief Officer of respondent no. 1 municipal Council condoned the technical breaks in the service of the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner was in the continuous service of respondent no. 1 Municipal Council since 28- 7-1959. The date of birth of the petitioner is 12-5-1934. It is contended that petitioner acquired B. A. qualification in the year 1975, post graduate degree (M. A. ) in 1977 and degree of Bachelor of Education in 1979. It is further contended that the respondent no. 4 was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 2-7-1962. The date of birth of the respondent no. 4 is 3- 11-1940. The respondent no. 4 acquired degree of Bachelor of Arts in 1961 and degree of bachelor of Education in 1967. It is contended that respondent no. 1 Municipal Council promoted respondent no. 4 to the post of Head master giving go-bye to the claim of the petitioner to the said post of Head Master.

(3.) It is alternatively contended by learned Counsel Shri. Haq that even if it is presumed that breaks in service of the petitioner were not condoned by the competent Authority, even then petitioner and respondent no. 4 came to be appointed as Assistant Teacher on 2-7- 1962 and since petitioner was elder to the respondent no. 4 in age, petitioner's claim for the post of Head Master ought to have been considered by the Respondent no. 1 Council. In order to substantiate this contention, reliance is placed by the learned Counsel on the judgment of this Court in Sopan s/o. Bhagwan kinage Vs. Director of Education, Pune and others (1990 Mh. LJ. 97).