VANDANA KASHINATH GAMNE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has done her M.A. She has also completed B.Ed course. She was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 10/7/1996 in respondent 4-Institution on D.Ed scale (Rs.1,400/- - Rs.2,600/-). She was appointed in non-aided school because at that time, no post of Assistant Teacher was vacant in aided school. The petitioner, on her on accord, agreed to work on D.Ed scale in aided school. On 6/3/1997, she gave an undertaking stating that if her appointment is made on B.Ed scale, she will not claim any seniority as per GR dated 5/6/1992 and she will not claim graduate scale (B.Ed scale). The petitioner is thus working on D.Ed scale in aided school on her own volition.

(2.) According to the petitioner, a seniority list was published and from time to time, right from 1997, Assistant Teachers have been appointed in the vacant posts of B.Ed scale. According to her, many vacancies have arisen in the school in the B.Ed scale and though the petitioner was qualified and had been working in the B.Ed scale, she was never appointed against B.Ed scale. The petitioner is, therefore, claiming B.Ed scale from 19/3/1997 and the difference of wages of D.Ed scale and B.Ed scale.

(3.) The petitioner has placed reliance on communication dated 23/12/1998 issued by respondent 3 stating that the petitioner had become permanent and, there was no need for the approval of the appointment of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, she had made representation dated 4/12/2004 to the respondents requesting that she may be granted B.Ed scale. Respondent 3 took cognizance of the said representation and directed respondent 4 that having regard to the policy of the Government, the available trained teachers should be adjusted against the vacancies which arise for the trained teachers. Again by representation dated 1/12/2005, the petitioner requested respondent 4 that she may be given B.Ed scale because the post had become vacant by the resignation of one Mr. Tidke. She sent another representation dated 29/6/2006. The respondents did not consider the petitioner's representation. According to the petitioner, the respondents transferred those who had made similar grievances to far off places.