SURENDRA WAMANRAO NISTANE Vs. NEW GRAMIN SHIKSHAN SANSTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Writ Petition, challenge to the judgment of School Tribunal dated 04-04-1996 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 10-07-1992. It is admitted position that the respondent no. 2 was possessing the necessary qualification on 10-07-1992.

(2.) Advocate Kothale, for petitioner contends that the petitioner was also qualified on 10-07-1992, if the petitioner is accepted to have joined the services on 01-07-1987. He contends that the Management has deliberately shown that petitioner has joined the services on 01-08-1987 and therefore, he does not possess the qualification as required by Rule 3 (l) (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 01-07-1987, and it is further mentioned that, he has passed his B. Ed, examination on 10-09-1987. 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 10-07-1990, 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 04-07-1992 to contend that on 04-07-1992, 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 01-07-1987, and is also received by the petitioner on the same date. He contents 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 01-08-1987. He further states that even service book prepared by the Management shows the date of joining as 01-08-1987. 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 stated that a finding of fact has been arrived at by the School tribunal, which cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction.