DEVLAL JAGATRAM CHAUHAN Vs. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL GONDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners have challenged the seniority list dated 2-5-1991 prepared by the municipal Council, Gondia, the Respondent No. 1 herein. The petitioners and the respondents Nos. 3 to 9 are Assistant teachers serving in various municipal schools run and managed by the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 2 is the education Officer of Zilla Parishad, Bhandara.

(2.) THE petitioner No. 1 joined the respondent No. 1 with effect from 7-6-1960, while, the petitioner No. 2 joined the service of the respondent No. 1 with effect from 24-7-1959. Initially they were appointed in the middle school classes. The Petitioners have claimed that after improving their qualifications, i. e. acquiring B. A. Degree in the year 1962 and 1961, respectively, in the year 1962, they were promoted as high school teachers. The Petitioners acquired B. Ed. training on 11-5-1963. Thus they have claimed that they became qualified trained teachers for high school with effect from 11-5-1963. The petitioners have claimed that they were permanent employees of the municipal council on 31-12-1965 and that their services at the relevant time were governed by the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Secondary education Act, 1951 and the Code framed thereunder (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity ).

(3.) AS per the petitioners, the respondent No. 3 was appointed on 19-7-1961 and acquired graduation in the year 1961 and B. Ed. training in the year 1964. The respondent No. 4 was appointed in the year 1961, and acquired graduation in the year 1956 and B. Ed. training qualification in the year 1970. The Respondent No. 5 was appointed on 25-11-1959 and acquired graduation degree in the year 1962 and B. Ed. training qualification in 1967. The Respondent No. 6 was appointed on 1-8-1962 and has done her graduation in the year 1962 and acquired B. Ed. training qualification in the year 1971. The respondent No. 7 was appointed on 1-8-1962 and has done her graduation in the year 1962 and acquired b. Ed. training qualification in the year 1971. The respondent No. 8 was appointed on 1-8-1962, and has done his graduation in the year 1961 and has acquired B. Ed. training qualification in the year 1964. The respondent No. 9 was appointed on 4-8-1960, and has done his graduation in the year 1963 and obtained B. Ed. training qualification in the year 1971. As per the petitioners, as the respondent Nos. 3 to 9 have acquired B. Ed. training qualification much subsequent to the petitioners acquiring B. Ed. training qualification, these respondents must be treated as juniors to them and the seniority list dated 2-5-1991 giving seniority to the respondents Nos. 3 to 9 above the petitioners is illegal. There is dispute as to when the petitioners were appointed in the high school. As per the petitioners, they were appointed in the year 1962, while, the seniority list shows that they were appointed in the year 1964. We will deal with this issue separately in the subsequent part of this judgment.