1 WP 2216/2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2216 OF 2009 1 Arunkumar s/o Sukram Baviskar, Age 32 years, Occupation Service Petitioners 2 Sau. Sangita Rajiv Shirsate, Age 33 years, Occupation Service Both R/o – C/o. Bhausaheb Raut Vidyalaya, Jalgaon, Jilla Peth, In front of B.J. Market, Jalgaon, Taluka and District Jalgaon V E R S U S 1 Sau. Pramodini Vishram Baviskar, Age 32 years, Occupation service, C/o. Bhausaheb Raut Vidyalaya, Jalgaon, Jilla Peth, In front of B.J. Market, Jalgaon, Taluka and District Jalgaon Respondents 2 Akhil Koli Samaj Parishad Maharashtra State Mumbai, C/o. Bhausaheb Raut Vidyalaya, Jalgaon, Jilla Peth, In front of B.J. Market, Jalgaon, Taluka and District Jalgaon 3 Akhil Koli Samaj Parishad Maharashtra State Mumbai, C/o. Bhausaheb Raut Vidyalaya, Jalgaon, Jilla Peth, In front of B.J. Market, Jalgaon, Taluka and District Jalgaon 4 Bhausaheb Raut Vidyalaya, Jalgaon, Jilla Peth, In front of B.J. Market, Jalgaon, Taluka and District Jalgaon 5 Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon (Secondary Division), Office – Zilla Parishad Bhavan, Jalgaon 6 Suvarnasingh Devansing Rajput, Age 29 years, Occupation Service, R/o C/o. Bhausaheb Raut Vidyalaya, Jalgaon, Jilla Peth, Infront of B.J. Market, Jalgaon, Taluka and District Jalgaon 2 WP 2216/2009 7 Vaishali Nivrutti Narkhede, Age 30 years, Occupation Service, Resident of as above. 8 Vinod Jaysing Koli, Age 34 years, Occupation Service, Resident of as above. Mr. A.G. Talhar, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. M.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent No.1 Respondents No. 2 to 8 though served, absent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2217 OF 2009 Vinod s/o Jaysing Koli, Age 34 years, Occupation Service, R/o – C/o. Bhausaheb Raut Vidyalaya, Jalgaon, Jilla Peth, In front of B.J. Market, Jalgaon, Taluka and District Jalgaon Petitioner V E R S U S 1 Sau. Pramodini Vishram Baviskar, Age 32 years, Occupation service, C/o. Bhausaheb Raut Vidyalaya, Jalgaon, Jilla Peth, In front of B.J. Market, Jalgaon, Taluka and District Jalgaon Respondents 2 Akhil Koli Samaj Parishad Maharashtra State Mumbai, C/o. Bhausaheb Raut Vidyalaya, Jalgaon, Jilla Peth, In front of B.J. Market, Jalgaon, Taluka and District Jalgaon 3 Akhil Koli Samaj Parishad Maharashtra State Mumbai, C/o. Bhausaheb Raut Vidyalaya, Jalgaon, Jilla Peth, In front of B.J. Market, Jalgaon, Taluka and District Jalgaon 4 Bhausaheb Raut Vidyalaya, Jalgaon, Jilla Peth, In front of B.J. Market, Jalgaon, Taluka and District Jalgaon 3 WP 2216/2009 5 Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon (Secondary Division), Office – Zilla Parishad Bhavan, Jalgaon 6 Suvarnasingh Devansing Rajput, Age 29 years, Occupation Service, R/o C/o. Bhausaheb Raut Vidyalaya, Jalgaon, Jilla Peth, Infront of B.J. Market, Jalgaon, Taluka and District Jalgaon 7 Vaishali Nivrutti Narkhede, Age 30 years, Occupation Service, Resident of as above. 8 Arunkumar s/o Sukram Baviskar, Age 32 years, Occupation Service, Resident of as above. 9 Sangita Rajiv Shirsate, Age 33 years, Occupation Service, Resident of as above. Mr. A.G. Talhar, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. M.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent No.1 Respondents No. 2 to 9 though served, absent CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 25th March, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Both these petitions can be disposed of finally by this common Judgment, at admission stage. 2. Respondent No. 1 has education qualification of B.A. B.Ed. She was appointed as Assistant Teacher in a school run by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on 20th July, 1996, but her appointment was made in “D. Ed. Pay Scale”. In 1997 and in 2007, the petitioners, who also have educational qualification of B.A. B.Ed. were appointed in the same school as Assistant Teachers, but they were appointed in “B. Ed. pay Scale”. Respondent No. 1 did not then demand that her seniority should be shown in category ‘C’ of Schedule – F of the Maharashtra Employees of Private School Rules. 3. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 published an advertisement in newspapers 4 WP 2216/2009 that they would fill up two vacancies of Assistant Teacher post in the same school. But, the Education Officer (Secondary Division), Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon did not give his approval to the advertisement published by respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Despite this, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 held interviews of the candidates and selected respondent Nos. 6 and 7 and appointed them on 12th June, 2006 as Assistant Teachers in “B. Ed. Pay Scale”. 4. This time Respondent No. 1 feel aggrieved and she filed the appeal before the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nasik, rather belatedly on 25th July, 2006. If the cause of action for the appeal had arisen on 12th June, 2006, she should have filed the appeal within 30 days, which was the prescribed period of limitation. Her appeal was delayed for about 13 days. She made an application seeking condonation of delay of these 13 days. The present petitioners opposed the application. 5. Their main bone of contention was that respondent No. 1 ought to have filed the appeal long back when they were appointed in 1997 and in 2000 on B.Ed. Pay Scale. The learned Presiding Officer apparently ignored this objection and held that the apparent cause of action for filing of the appeal was the event that took place on 12th June, 2006 and he condoned the delay which was quiet negligible. 6. The present petitions are filed against this order condoning the delay that was caused in filing of the appeal. In my view, the objections that the petitioners have raised cannot be ignored. They based on the respondent's acquiescence etc. But it can be considered when the appeal would be heard on merits. Instead of dismissing the appeal on the basis of such objection alone, I am of the view that the appeal should be decided on all the issues, that could be raised by the respondents (respondents in lower Court) 5 WP 2216/2009 including the objection of the petitioners, mentioned above. I think, the impugned order should not be disturbed and following order would suffice the ends of justice : ORDER 1. The impugned order is confirmed. 2. The petitioners and other respondents may file their written statements, if they want, to oppose the appeal. 3. The learned Presiding Officer shall frame issues on all the objections raised by the respondents including the petitioners objection, mentioned above, if raised, and decide the appeal finally on merits. 4. In view of above, earlier order of interim stay stands vacated. 5. Both the writ petitions stand disposed of. ( A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ) SRM/wp2216&2217/09/25/3/11ok