IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 447 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 447 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 447 OF 2008 Ehtesham Anjum ] .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra & 5 ors. ] .. Respondents Mr. A.N. Maniyar for the petitioner. Mr. S. Shreedharan, AGP, for the respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. Santosh Shetty for the respondents No.5 & 6. CORAM: S.B. MHASE & A.A. KUMBHAKONI, JJ. DATED: 10TH JUNE, 2008 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner has approached this court seeking senior scale on the ground that he has completed 12 years of service and, therefore, he is eligible to get the senior scale. The respondents have filed an Affidavit stating that in order to get the senior scale, three conditions are required to be complied with viz. (a) the candidate should have completed twelve years of qualifying service in the same scale, (b) as per the Confidential Reports, his performance should be : 2 : satisfactory and (c) he must have completed new education policy course conducted by the Education Department. 3. So far as the petitioner is concerned, the respondent-Management has stated that the petitioner satisfies conditions (a) and (c). However, the petitioner does not satisfy condition (b) viz. his performance is not satisfactory. The respondent- Management has demonstrated in paragraph 4 of their Affidavit as to how the performance of the petitioner was not satisfactory which has been specifically laid down in paragraph 4(i) to 4(x). Suffice it to state that it has been found that the petitioner was in the habit of missing periods on various occasions and he was issued Memo on 15th December, 1993. The Management has also stated that he was in the habit of using filthy language with lady staff members and seniors and, therefore, on 10th March, 1998 and 1st September, 1998, Memos were issued to him. When the petitioner was entrusted with the work of supervision on 9th August, 2004, he allowed the students to sit in the examination hall as per their choice instead of the sitting arrangement and the petitioner was once again issued a Memo on 7th October, 2004. On 21st February, 1997, the petitioner was charge sheeted in respect of violation of : 3 : secondary school code and ultimately, he was awarded a minor penalty which was confirmed in appeal before the Deputy Director of Education. 4. All this goes to show that the petitioner’s record was not satisfactory and, therefore, he was not considered for senior scale. We find that the action of the Management is justified. We, therefore, refrain ourselves from entertaining the Writ Petition and it is, accordingly, rejected. Sd/- Sd/- [A.A. [A.A. [A.A. KUMBHAKONI, J.] KUMBHAKONI, J.] KUMBHAKONI, J.] [S.B. [S.B. [S.B. MHASE, J.] MHASE, J.] MHASE, J.]