DINKAR TUKARAM DOLE Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of the writ petition argued that the petitioner as well as respondent No.2 were appointed on the same date, namely, 1.7.1995. The petitioner was not a trained teacher when he was appointed. The petitioner had, however, appeared for B.P.Ed. examination and the petitioner stood first class in the said examination, but then received the marksheet of the result on 21.7.1995. The date of birth of the petitioner is 20.6.1967, as against the date of birth of respondent No.2 is 15.4.1970. In accordance with Note - 3 to Schedule - F of the , the petitioner is senior for the purpose of counting seniority. The date of joining of both petitioner as well as respondent No.2 is same, namely, 1.7.1995, and therefore, the petitioner is senior to respondent No.2. Learned Counsel for respondent No.3 supported the petition and cited decision in the case of Lal and others...Versus...State of H.P., Through Its Secretary, Excise And Taxation Department, Government Secretariat, Shimla - 2 and others, reported in 1997 (4) Supreme Court Cases 416 and argued that the seniority should relate back to the date of appointment in the event of the candidate passing examination within prescribed period of probation. He also argued that the appeal was preferred not within reasonable time by respondent No.2 before the School Tribunal inasmuch as the petitioner was made incharge Headmaster in 2003 and was actually promoted on 25.6.2003 and approval to his appointment was granted on 27.5.2005.

(3.) Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent No.2 opposed the writ petition and argued that respondent No.2 was qualified person when he was appointed and when he entered the service on 1.7.1995, but the petitioner was not qualified, and therefore, according to him, there is no question of applying Note - 3 to Schedule - F of the Rules. According to him, the position of both the teachers should be same, which is not the case in hand. He relied on the decision in the case of Ramchandra s/o Pandurang Dalal...Versus...Municipal Council, Pavni and others, reported in 2006 (6) Mh.L.J. 227, and argued that seniority of trained teacher should be determined from the date of acquisition of qualification.