ASHOK LAXMANRAO GADGE Vs. PRATIMA DEODATTA KARMAKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two Writ Petitions can be disposed of by common judgment since the controversy involved is identical. Both these Writ Petitioners are also directed against the same order of the School Tribunal whereby he has set aside orders of promotions of petitioners.

(2.) FACTS relevant for the purpose of these Writ Petitions are as follows : petitioner Ashok Gadge in Writ Petition no. 1860 of 2008 was appointed as a teacher in the respondent no. 2 School on 11. 08. 1981. He possessed qualification B. Sc. B. Ed. on the day he was appointed as Assistant Teacher. He was promoted as Assistant head Master w. e. f. 01. 01. 1986, subsequently he was promoted to the post of Head Master on 01. 04. 1988. Petitioner belongs to backward community and as per the policy of the reservation of the Government the petitioner was promoted. According to petitioner said promotions of petitioner as Head Master has been approved by the Education Officer when the petitioner was promoted to the post of assistant Head Master and the Head Master. No objection was raised whatsoever by any of the teachers. After lapse of period of 19 years it is alleged that respondent no. 1 Pratima karmarkar made a representation to the education Officer to promote her to the post of Head Master in place of petitioner. She had contended in the said representation that as per the decision of this Court in Baldev Ade's (2006 (6) Maharashtra Law Journal 882 : [2007 (1) ALL MR 381 (F. B.)]) case the reservation in respect of post of Head Master would be available if there are 4 or more posts of Head Master available with the management of the school. The said representation was in fact rejected by the school management as well by Education Officer and feeling aggrieved thereby she preferred an appeal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private schools Act before the School Tribunal. She raised the same contentions that since the management runs only three schools no post of Head Master could have been reserved for any backward class community. According to her she was the senior most teacher and therefore she should have been promoted to the post of Head Master.

(3.) IN the said appeal the petitioner ashok Gadge as well as the other petitioner h. P. Khandait were also respondents. They contended that they were promoted according to policy of the Government. They also contended that they were promoted in the year 1986 and therefore were in category 'b' while the petitioner continued to work in category 'c' and therefore she could not be said to be senior. They also contended that the judgment in Baldev Ade's case could not be applied retrospectively.