SOPAN BHAGWAN KINAGE Vs. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION PUNE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -BY this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner a Secondary School Teacher, challenges the orders and decisions of the respondents whereby he was given a seniority below that of the Respondent No. 4 teacher, resulting in discrimination which was arbitrary and discriminatory and hence hostile, being further and thus violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner holding the degree of Bachelor of Arts as also the degree of bachelor of Education was appointed a teacher in the Modern Education society's High School at Badnera with effect from 1-7-1958, On the same day, the respondent No. 4 - A. D. Bapat was also appointed a teacher in the said school. According to the petitioner and even admittedly, the respondent No. 4 obtained the degree and qualifications of Bachelor of education only in the year 1961. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the Respondent No. 4 was junior to him and the petitioner was entitled to be shown as senior, in the seniority list.

(2.) UP to the year 1974, no seniority list had been prepared. The first ever time when it was prepared by the management and circulated was on 19-1-1974. In this seniority list, the name of the petitioner was wrongly shown at Serial No. 4 while that of the respondent No. 4 was shown at serial No. 5 and that of one Shri Patil at Serial No. 3. Shri Patil who had been retired from service, since before the presentation of this petition, had obtained his Bachelor of Education degree even later than the Respondent no. 4 ; he had obtained it in the year 1963. The petitioner, was, therefore, senior even to Shri Patil.

(3.) IN spite of the fact that the petitioner being a trained teacher, was entitled to get seniority over Shri Patil also as the respondent No 4 Shri bapat, as per the relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Secondary Schools code and other relevant provisions applicable to the teachers and non-Government educational institutions, the seniority list as prepared was not therefore valid and illegal one, it affected the fundamental right of equality to the petitioner.