1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 4764 OF 2007 (Vinay Dattatraya Nimgaonkar .v. The Education Officer and others) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri M.P. Lala, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.M. Deshpande, AGP for the respondent No.1. Shri H.A. Deshpande, Advocate for the respondent No.2. Shri A. Shelat, Advocate for the respondent No.3. CORAM : R.V. MORE, J. 02ND APRIL, 2008. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties. The petitioner challenges the legality and propriety of the order passed by the Education Officer, respondent No.1 on 05.10.2006, whereby the respondent No.3 was held to be senior to petitioner and the respondent No.4. The petitioner was appointed on 1st December, 1993 and joined on 13th December, 1993 and at the time of appointment he was B.Sc.,B.Ed.. The respondent No.4 was appointed on 26.07.1992 and at the time of her appointment she was B.A., B.Ed.. The respondent No.3 was appointed on 10.01.1979 and at the time of his appointment he was S.S.C., D.Ed.. The respondent No.3 2 completed his B.A. in the year 1988 and B.Ed. in the year 1997. There is no dispute that the petitioner and the respondent No.4 from the date of their respective appointments are placed in Category-C. The petitioner also does not dispute that the respondent No.4 is senior to him. The dispute in the present petition is restricted to interse seniority between the petitioner and the respondent No.3. The learned Education Officer concluded that the respondent No.3 was S.S.C.,D.Ed. at the time of his appointment and has acquired qualification of B.A. in the year 1988 and is entitled to be placed in Category-C from completion of ten years and the date of his intial appointment. The petitioner completed ten years in the year 1989 and, therefore, was entitled to be placed in Category-C with effect from 1989. The petitioner is thus junior to the respondent No.3. The learned Education Officer to support his contention has relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Pandurang Atmaramji Tijare .v. State of Maharashtra and others (reported in 1997 (3) Mh.L.J., 568). Shri M.P. Lala, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner made two folds submissions. Firstly, the petitioner was already promoted to the post of Headmaster prior to the date of the impugned order 3 under which the respondent No.3 is held to be senior to the petitioner and, therefore, the remedy of the respondent No.3 was to challenge the petitioner's promotion in the School Tribunal under Section 9 of MEPS Act and secondly the qualification of Diploma in Education/Diploma in Teaching (one year's course) as referred in fourth line of Category-C is not equivalent to D.Ed. (two years' course) and since the respondent No.3 was D.Ed. (two years' course) at the time of his initial appointment and though he completed ten years in the year 1989, he could not have been given seniority above petitioner inasmuch as the respondent No.3 acquired B.Ed. qualification in the year 1997. In my opinion, the first objection of Shri M.P. Lala has no merit. If by the provisions of law the Education Officer is entrusted with the duty to decide the seniority in that case seniority can be decided irrespective of the fact of the petitioner's promotion to the post of Headmaster. The dispute before the Education Officer is not about the petitioner's promotion to the post of Headmaster but the dispute is about seniority interse between petitioner and respondent Nos.3 and 4. Therefore, in my opinion, no fault can be found with the approach adopted by the learned Education Officer. 4 The second objection raised by Shri M.P. Lala, the learned Counsel for the petitioner also, in my opinion, has no force. In view of the provisions of Note 2 of Schedule-F, the qualification of D.Ed (two years' course) is considered as training qualification for the purpose of seniority even after 1st October, 1970. Be that as it may, under Schedule-B(II), the qualifications for trained teacher in Secondary School and Junior College of Education are fixed. Clause-2 of Schedule-B(II) prescribes qualification for under Graduate Teacher under which person having qualification of Diploma in Education is eligible to be appointed. In the facts and circumstances mentioned above, I do not find any error so as to enable me to interfere in my jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE *rrg.