CHALISGAON EDUCATION SOCIETY Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is assailing the order dated 14th december, 2000, passed by Education Officer (Secondary) , Nasik at Exhibit-O the petitioner No 1 is the public trust, registered under the Bombay Public Trust act and is an educational institution The petitioner No 2 is working as Head master of Anandibai Bankat Boys High School, Chalisgaon The respondent no 2 is Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon, who has passed the impugned order, whereas the respondent No 3 is Assistant Head Master of the school, who was directed to act as the Incharge Head Master by the respondent No 2 education Officer The petitioner No 2 was appointed as Assistant Teacher by an order dated 12th June, 1973 whereas the respondent No 3 Vijayalaxmi Patil came to be appointed on 22nd July, 1983 as Assistant Teacher It is contended that respondent No 3 is, from amongst a reserved category and belongs to Rajput bhamta caste

(2.) It is contended that in pursuant to the directions issued in an earlier Writ petition No 2138 of 2000 one Mr A V Yeole was appointed as Head Master by an order dated 30th September, 2000 The petitioner No 2, who was serving as an Assistant Teacher was promoted as an Assistant Head Master Mr Yeole's date of superannuation was also 30th September, 2000 and on his superannuation, by an order dated 1st October, 2000, the petitioner No 2 ramkrushna was appointed as Head Master On 17th October, 2000, the petitioner No 1 trust communicated the factum of appointment of petitioner no 2 as Head Master to the Education Officer and requested to grant necessary approval However, the respondent No 2, by a communication dated 27th january, 2000, sought explanation from the petitioner No. 1 educational institution, as to why the petitioner No. 2 was appointed as a Head Master and further directed that the proposal of the respondent No. 3 for appointment as head Master be forwarded. In reply to the show cause notice, issued by the education Officer, the petitioner No. 1 trust informed that the petitioner No. 2 is the senior most person and is eligible for being appointed as a Head Master. The explanation tendered by the petitioner No. 1 trust was not accepted by the respondent No. 2 and he further, by an order dated 14th December, 2000, authorised the respondent No. 3 to sign the pay bills as an officiating Head master. It was also communicated that the respondent No. 3 would, at the same time, hold the charge of the post of Assistant Head Master. The said order dated 14th December, 2000, passed by the respondent No. 2 is called in question in this petition, by the petitioners.

(3.) It is submitted by the petitioners that the petitioner No. 2 is the senior most Assistant Teacher, who was appointed on 12th June, 1973 whereas the date of appointment of respondent No. 3 is 22nd July, 1983. Considering the claim of respondent No. 3, from amongst the reserved category, she came to be promoted as an Assistant Head Master with effect from 1st February, 1992. The petitioner no. 2 came to be promoted as an Assistant Head Master by an order dated 30th september, 2000. The petitioner No. 2 is at serial No. 3 in the seniority list whereas the respondent No. 3 is placed at serial No. 4 in category-B. It is contended that, taking into consideration the provisions of Rule 3 (3) of Schedule-F, the petitioner No. 2 shall have to be considered as senior and the institution did not commit any error in promoting petitioner No. 2 to the post of Head Master. The petitioners also placed reliance on a judgment, reported in (1999) 7 SCC 209 in the case of "ajit Singh and others (II) vs. State of Punjab and others". The apex Court, in the aforesaid judgment, considered the matter in relation to the quota-rota rule and observed that the roaster point promotees cannot count their seniority for the promoted category from the date of their continuous officiation in the post of promotion vis-a-vis the general categories, who were senior to them in lower category and who were later promoted. The petitioners, as such, canvassed that the petitioner No. 2 was appointed earlier in point of time. The respondent No. 3 was considered from amongst the reserved category and was promoted earlier than that of the petitioner No. 2 to the post of Assistant Head master. However, only because of the promotion, earlier in point of time the respondent No. 3 cannot be considered senior to that of the petitioner No. 2. The petitioners, therefore, contend that the order passed by the respondent No. 2 is erroneous and liable to be quashed.