- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.250 OF 2006 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.52 OF 1999 ... Shri Ashok Sonawane ...Appellant v/s. Mrs.Lakhwinder Kaur Gurai and ors. ...Respondents ... Mr.Uday Warujikar for the Appellant. Mr.A.Y.Sakhare i/b Mr.Yogesh Mehta for the Respondent No.1. Mr.R.M.Patne, AGP for the State. ... CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & V.M.KANADE, JJ. DATED: 22ND JANUARY, 2008 - 2 - P.C.: 1. By this Appeal the Appellant challenges the order passed by the learned single Judge of this court dated 23-6-2006 in Writ Petition No.52 of 1999. In nutshell, the learned single Judge by that judgment has held that the original Petitioner Mrs.Lakhwinder Kaur Gurai is senior to the present Appellant in category "C" in Schedule "F" in the Rules framed under the MEPS Act. For that purpose following facts are relevant. . The Petitioner and the Respondent are both working in the same school. That school admittedly is the recognised secondary school and therefore conditions of services of the Petitioner and the Appellant are governed by the provisions of M.E.P.S.Act. The Appellant was appointed as secondary school teacher in that school in the year 1984. Admittedly, at the time of his appointment he was not holding training qualification. He was holding degree of B.Sc. The Appellant obtained training qualification of B.Ed. in the year 1989. The original Petitioner obtained - 3 - the degree of B.Sc. in the year 1987 and the training qualification of B.Ed. in 1988. She was appointed as teacher in 1988. The learned single Judge has held that because of the provisions of Rules framed under the M.E.P.S.Act the original Petitioner being the trained graduate teacher appointed as a teacher in secondary school, comes into category "C" Schedule "F" of the Rules immediately on her appointment in 1988. Whereas the Appellant, who till 1989 though working as a teacher in the same school was in Category "D" being untrained graduate teacher, comes into category "C" in 1989 and therefore, he is junior in category "C" to the original Petitioner. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that the original Petitioner was appointed in different pay scales and therefore she will not come into category "C" immediately on her appointment in 1988. 3. The submission has no substance. Because perusal of the provisions of Schedule "F" shows that for a teacher to enter category "C" the scale in which the appointment is made is not relevant. What is - 4 - relevant is the qualification held by the person and the post against which the person is appointed. 4. It was then submitted that the Appellant was always treated as senior to the original Petitioner, but the original Petitioner never challenged it till 1997. In other words, according to the Appellant the Petitioner was guilty of latches. 5. In our opinion, the submission has no substance. Because admittedly no seniority list prepared by the management from 1988 till 1997 was produced. According to the scheme of the Act and the Rules a teacher gets an opportunity to raise an objection to the seniority list only when the management prepares seniority list and circulates it amongst the teachers for their signatures. If there was no seniority list prepared by the management till the original Petitioner raised the objection, then in our opinion, the Petitioner cannot be held guilty of any latches. It was then submitted that according to the judgment of this court an issue of seniority can be raised before the School Tribunal while challenging the promotion order, which resulted in supersession of a person and therefore an alternate remedy was - 5 - available to the Petitioner. 6. In our opinion, the submission has no substance. The petition was admitted in the year 1999, and therefore at the final hearing the learned single Judge could not have thrown away the petition on the ground of availability of alternate remedy. It was then submitted that now the order has been issued promoting the Petitioner to the post of Head Master, and therefore, now the issue of seniority can be raised before the School Tribunal. 7. In our opinion, once this court decides the issue of seniority between the Petitioner and the Appellant, the School Tribunal which is a court subordinate to this court can not go into that issue again. 8. We find that going by the provisions of the Act and the Rules, it is the original Petitioner who was senior to the Appellant in category "C", that is what the learned single Judge has declared. We find no reason to interfere with the same. 9. The Appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed. - 6 - (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (V.M.KANADE, J.)