1 W.P.No.11753 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.11753 OF 2010 1. Prabhakar s/o Jagannath Gavale, Age 56 years, Occu.Service, R/o Mayur Park, Aurangabad Taluka and District Aurangabad 2. Dilip s/o Puroshottam Bhavthankar, Age 50 years, Occu.Service, R/o Gulmohar Colony, Aurangabad Taluka and District Aurangabad ..PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra through Department of Secondary Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032 2. The Maharashtra State Council for Educational Research and Training Pune 3. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad 4. Shri Saraswati Bhuvan Shikshan Sanstha, Saraswati Nagar, Aurangpura, Aurangabad 5. Ashok s/o Ganpatrao Joshi Age 56 years, Occu.Service, R/o Nageshwarwadi, Aurangabad Taluka and District Aurangabad ..RESPONDENTS Mr D.P.Palodkar, Advocate for petitioners Mr V.H.Dighe, Assistant Govt.Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3 Mr A.R.Kale, Advocate holding for Mr A.R.Joshi, Advocate for respondent No.4 Mr R.S.Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent No.5 2 W.P.No.11753 of 2010 CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 16.11.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 23.11.2011 JUDGMENT 1. Heard. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. The writ petitioners question the order passed by Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad dated 8th/11th October 2010. Thereby the curriculum of 1977 passed by Respondent No.5 was equated to Dip.T. and retrospective seniority was showered effective from 23.1.1980. The petitioners and respondent No.5 are teachers in respondent No.4 Shri Saraswati Bhuvan Shikshan Sanstha. The respondent No.5 is secondary teacher. He qualified himself with B.A. on 23.1.1980 and claimed had D.Ed. qualification in April 1977 (result declared on 15.6.1977) from Government Board of Examinations, Director of Education, Maharashtra State, Pune. The respondent No.5 was appointed with respondent No.4 initially as a Clerk and then as a Primary Teacher in 1974. 3. The Respondent No.5 has, previously claimed his qualification as S.S.C., D.Ed., in earlier rounds of litigation. He changed his stance and staked, he was S.S.C., Dip.T. The grievance of the petitioners is the 3 W.P.No.11753 of 2010 D.Ed. qualification acquired by the respondent No.5 on 15.6.1977 in no case could be equated to Dip.T., as the respondent No.2 has clarified. The respondent No.5 did not possess such qualification as Dip.T. It cannot be, therefore, treated to be at par with B.Ed.graduates. The respondent No.5 though was consciously alive to his acquired D.Ed. qualification, on 15.6.1977 never asserted, it should be treated to be Dip.T., the two years course in teaching. 4. There is no controversy between the parties that as per Category ‘C’ of Schedule F of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Rules, 1981, the seniority of teachers in secondary schools is maintained. A teacher having acquired qualification of B.Ed. or its equivalent (like Dip.T.) is entitled to enter his name directly in category ‘C’. However, a teacher, who has acquired a qualification B.A./B.Com. or B.Sc. and D.Ed., has to complete ten years teaching experience, thereafter his name can be entered in category ‘C’. 5. Mr Deshmukh, learned Counsel for the respondent No.5 has criticised the approach of the petitioners. He submits, Rule 12 of M.E.P.S. Rules, 1981 is in respect of maintaining seniority list. Rule 12 (3) obviously illustrates, the disputes, if any in the matter of seniority shall be referred to Education Officer (Secondary). The error committed by the respondent No.5 in claiming his qualification as S.S.C., D.Ed. has been explained by him in Writ Petition No.3775 of 2009, reflected in paragraph 5 of the judgment and order of this Court 4 W.P.No.11753 of 2010 dated 19.7.2010. Mr Deshmukh accepts, in earlier round of litigation, in several writ petitions, the respondent No.5 was unable to explain correct nature of qualification in the earlier representations and, therefore, his correct seniority was not fixed by the Education Officer. According to him, it must be construed that the respondent No.5 has passed Dip.T. (two years old course) in April 1977 (result declared on 15.6.1977) and since he has also completed graduation in Arts faculty, he falls in Category C-3 and could not be branded to be in Category `D’ of Schedule F, appended to Rule 12 of the M.E.P.S. Rules 1981. He has interpreted orders of the Education Officer and also criticised to the affidavit filed by respondent No.2 through Dnyaneshwar s/o Tulshidas Junnarkar. Mr Deshmukh, also showed original certificate to interpret it to be Dip.T., while the same certificate and mark-sheet was referred by Mr Palodkar to be D.Ed. of 1977 and could not be Dip.T. 6. Mr Deshmukh has, also placed reliance to the communication received by respondent No.5 under Right to Information Act, wherein the officer concerned informed the respondent No.5 on 17.3.2009, there is no Government Resolution available to inform that Dip.T. or D.Ed. qualifications are one and the same. However, it is clarified that these two qualifications are the qualifications of Government of Maharashtra for the teachers at primary school level before they acquire training. 5 W.P.No.11753 of 2010 7. The communication dated 9.3.2009 of Deputy Secretary Maharashtra State Council for Educational Research and Training, Pune, illustrates that the qualification acquired by respondent No.5 of curriculum of 1977 is equivalent to D.Ed. and it is not equivalent to Dip.T. or B.Ed. of any other State. I do not agree to criticism advanced against Respondent No.2, as Respondent No.2 is senior-most officer and he has advised the Education Officer how to read the certificates, but Education Officer, oblivious to rules and Government policy treated D.Ed. of 1977 as Dip.T. 8. The learned Assistant Government Pleader affirms to the position as indicated by respondent No.2. He has disputed to accept the qualification acquired by respondent No.5 in 1977, to be Dip.T., a two years course, equivalent to B.Ed. The seniority to Respondent No.5 could not be approved effective from 23.1.1980. 9. The course of 1977 is indeed, Diploma in Teaching course, which should be without any hustle, is to be equated to be D.Ed. of Maharashtra State. The explanation offered by affiant/respondent No.2 that this is indicated in the mark-sheet as Diploma in Training (revised curriculum) State Board of Teaching Education, needs acceptance. The subjects petitioners handled in 1977 and for D.Ed., are different, however, the Government resolutions placed by Respondent No.2 removes the cloud and deflate Respondent No.5’s assertion. The affiant has explained the position that the N.C.E.R.T. was established 6 W.P.No.11753 of 2010 vide Government Resolution dated 7.1.1967. Consequently, all establishment of other curriculum of teacher’s education at primary stage of one year duration were closed including Dip.T. or Diploma Education. The Diploma in teaching of two years duration was introduced vide Government Resolution dated 18.4.1968, which has been revised vide Government Resolution dated 27.11.1970, which indeed is the same diploma, which the respondent No.5 has passed, which is D.Ed. of Maharashtra and does not carry any equivalence to any other diploma or B.Ed. Canvassing that curriculum acquired by Respondent No.5 in 1977 to be equated to B.Ed. would be a fickle. His conduct in earlier round of litigation rebells to accept this position. Taking these aspects into consideration, I do not agree to the contentions raised by respondent No.5 that the 1977 curriculum acquired by respondent No.5 is to be equated to B.Ed. qualification. The net result would be, the respondent No.5 would be eligible to invoke Category C-4 of Schedule F, after completion of ten years of service after 1988, in tune with M.E.P.S. Rules, 1981. The mark-memo and certificate also will not advance to mean, it was Dip.T. of two years course to be equated to B.Ed. The curriculum activities acquired in the year 1977 by the respondent No.5 is equivalent to D.Ed. hence, he would not come within category C-3 of Schedule F of the M.E.P.S. Rules, 1981. 7 W.P.No.11753 of 2010 10. The order of the Education Officer dated 8th/11th October 2010 (Exh.`E’), calls for interference and it is accordingly set aside. Rule made absolute in above terms. No orders as to costs. ( K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.) Heard. The order is stayed for one month. ( K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.) (vvr/11753.10wp)