Lsp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4841 of 1998 Nagnath Sadhu Gaikwad ...Petitioner v/s. Maharashtra Shikshan Prasarak Mandal & ors. ...Respondents Mr.Dhananjay Halwai iby Mr.M.M.Vashi, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.A.P.Vanarase, AGP for Respondent No.4 CORAM CORAM CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. DATED DATED DATED : 28th February , 2008 : 28th February , 2008 : 28th February , 2008 ORAL ORAL ORAL JUDGEMENT JUDGEMENT JUDGEMENT This Petition is directed against the Judgement and order dated 23-7-1998 rendered by the School Tribunal at Pune thereby dismissing the Appeal No.110/1996 filed by the present Petitioner. 2. The Petitioner joined as an Assistant Teacher in the Respondent No.2 School on 19-9-1977 and at that time he possessed the qualifications of S.S.C. + D.Ed (2 years course), Whereas the Respondent No.3 also joined the very same School on 6-10-1977 with qualifications of S.S.C. + C.P.Ed.(one year course). The Respondent No.3 obtained his B.Ed. degree in 1984 whereas the Peitioner obtained the said degree in 1991. On 2 1-3-1996 the Respondent No.3 came to be appointed by way of promotion to the post of Head Master by the Respondent No.1 and 2 and said order of promotion came to be challenged by the Petitioner in Appeal No. 110/1996. It was contended by the Petitioner before the School Tribunal that on acquiring qualifications of B.Ed. in 1991, his seniority was required to be counted from the initial date of appointment i.e. 19-9-1977 and if so counted he would be senior to Respondent No.3 and thus eligible to the appointment for the post of Head Master by way of promotion before the candidature of Respondent No.3 could be considered by the management. The School Tribunal was not impressed by these submissions and it held that the Petitioner was junior to Respondent No.3. 3. The Respondent No.3 has filed an affidavit in reply and has relied upon the Division Bench Judgement of this Court in the case of Saramma v/s. Secretary/President, Saramma v/s. Secretary/President, Saramma v/s. Secretary/President, S.I.C.E.S. S.I.C.E.S. S.I.C.E.S. Society & others (1989 MLJ 951) Society & others (1989 MLJ 951) Society & others (1989 MLJ 951) and contended that the view taken by the School Tribunal cannot be faulted with and the same requires to be confirmed. 4. Thus, the controversy in this petition is in a very narrow compass so as to determine whether the petitioner is senior to Respondent No.3. Let us, therefore, note 3 down the details of the Petitioner as well as the Respondent No.3 as under:- ------------------------------------------------------------- Name ¦ Date of ¦Year of obtaining¦ Year of obtaining¦ ¦ appointment¦ B.A. degree ¦ B.Ed. degree ¦ ------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.N.S. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ Gaikwad ¦ 19-9-1977 ¦ 1989 ¦ 1991 ¦ (Petitioner) ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ Mr.B.V. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ Limbaji ¦ 6-10-1977 ¦ 1979 ¦ 1984 ¦ (Respondent ¦ ¦ ¦ No.3) ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ------------------------------------------------------------- 5. There is no dispute that on completion of the probation period, both the petitioner as well as Respondent No.3 would be confirmed in the academic year 1979-80. It is well known and as has been noted by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Saramma (supra), the MEPS Act, 1977 was brought into force on 15-7-1981 and the MEPS Rules, 1981 were brought into force by the State Government on 16-7-1981. Consequently, in academic year 1979-80, if the seniority list of the Assistant Teachers in the Respondent No.2 School was drawn, the same would be certainly as per the Guidelines as set out in Annexure-45 to the Secondary School Code. In the said annexure the Assistant Teachers were divided in categories A to G. In Category C, Assistant Teachers holding B.A./B.Sc. + S.T.C./D.Ed. (one year course) or its equivalent were placed whereas in category D the Assistant Teachers were holding the 4 qualifications of S.S.C.+ S.T.C./(Dip Ed./Dip T) (one year course) or its equivalent were placed whereas in category B alongwith others the holders of B.A./B.Sc. + Dip T (old two year course) were placed. Similarly, the Assistant Teachers with qualifications of B.A./B.Sc + S.T.C./Dip Ed./Dip T (one year course) with 10 years post S.T.C. etc. services were placed. As is obvious in the academic year 1979-80 the petitioner as well as the Respondent No.3 had just put in two years of service and,therefore, none of them would find place in category B and obviously Respondent No.3 would find his place in category C in the year 1979 as soon as he acquired B.A. degree whereas the Petitioner would have entered category C in the year 1989 on his acquiring the B.A. degree. Thus, in the academic year 1979-80 the Petitioner would have been in Category-D whereas the Respondent No.3 would have entered category C of annexure-45 to the Secondary School Code and he would be obviously rated senior to the Petitioner, if the Seniority list was drawn in the said academic year 1979-80 of the assistant teachers. When the MEPS Act and MEPS Rules were brought into force in July 1981, the Respondent No.3 would be senior to the Petitioner. The School Tribunal was,therefore, right in recording a finding that the petitioner/appellant was junior to Respondent No.3 and hence the said finding is required to be confirmed. 5 6. In the premises, this petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. The impugned order stands confirmed. Rule discharged with no order as to costs. [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.] [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.] [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.]