:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6275 OF 1999 WRIT PETITION NO. 6275 OF 1999 WRIT PETITION NO. 6275 OF 1999 Shrikant Adyaprasad Tiwari ] aged 32 years, Occ: Service, ] R/o. Vithoba-Rukmini Bhavan, ] Room No. 4, 1st floor, Lodha Marg] Nalasopara (E), Dist: Thane ]..Petitioner versus 1. The State of Maharashtra ] through the Secretary, School ] Education Department, Mantralaya] Mumbai 400 032 ] 2. The Education Officer ] (Primary), Thane Zilla Parishad ] Thane ] 3. The Chairman, ] Saraswati Seva Sangh, ] Bhaktawar Building, III floor ] Station Road, Andheri (West), ] Mumbai 400 058 ] 4. The Head Mistress, ] Smt. Indira Gandhi Vidyalaya, ] Gokhiware, Nalasopara (East) ] Taluka Vasai, Dist : Thane ]..Respondents Shri N. V. Bandiwadekar Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri C. R. Sonawane AGP for the Respondents No.1 and 2. None for the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, though served. CORAM : R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR & CORAM : R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR & CORAM : R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR & NARESH H. PATIL, JJ. NARESH H. PATIL, JJ. NARESH H. PATIL, JJ. DATE : 17TH AUGUST, 2006 DATE : 17TH AUGUST, 2006 DATE : 17TH AUGUST, 2006 ORAL JUDGMENT : ORAL JUDGMENT : ORAL JUDGMENT : :2: 1. Heard. 2. Undisputedly, the matter in issue in the present Petition is fully covered by the decisions of this Court in Kondiba s/o. Dattarao Mirashe vs. Kondiba s/o. Dattarao Mirashe vs. Kondiba s/o. Dattarao Mirashe vs. State of Maharashtra and others [2003(2)Mh.L.J.432] State of Maharashtra and others [2003(2)Mh.L.J.432] State of Maharashtra and others [2003(2)Mh.L.J.432] and and and in unreported decision in the matter of Tukaram unreported decision in the matter of Tukaram unreported decision in the matter of Tukaram Tryambak Chaudharivs.State of Maharashtra and others Tryambak Chaudharivs.State of Maharashtra and others Tryambak Chaudharivs.State of Maharashtra and others in Writ Petition No. 4632 of 1999 disposed along in Writ Petition No. 4632 of 1999 disposed along in Writ Petition No. 4632 of 1999 disposed along with various other similar petitions by Judgment with various other similar petitions by Judgment with various other similar petitions by Judgment dated 6.5.2004. dated 6.5.2004. dated 6.5.2004. In Kondiba’s case it was clearly held, thus : "In "In "In order to bring parity, it was decided order to bring parity, it was decided order to bring parity, it was decided that in respect of 5th to 7th standards that in respect of 5th to 7th standards that in respect of 5th to 7th standards teachers should be sanctioned in the ratio teachers should be sanctioned in the ratio teachers should be sanctioned in the ratio of 1:3 per class. It was also resolved that of 1:3 per class. It was also resolved that of 1:3 per class. It was also resolved that out of every 4 sanctioned teachers, 1st 3 out of every 4 sanctioned teachers, 1st 3 out of every 4 sanctioned teachers, 1st 3 teachers should possess educational teachers should possess educational teachers should possess educational qualifications of S.S.C. and D.Ed. and the qualifications of S.S.C. and D.Ed. and the qualifications of S.S.C. and D.Ed. and the 4th teacher should be a graduate with B.Ed./ 4th teacher should be a graduate with B.Ed./ 4th teacher should be a graduate with B.Ed./ D.Ed. Accordingly, 25% of the posts of D.Ed. Accordingly, 25% of the posts of D.Ed. Accordingly, 25% of the posts of teachers for 5th to 7th standards were teachers for 5th to 7th standards were teachers for 5th to 7th standards were converted from S.S.C. + D.Ed. to Graduate converted from S.S.C. + D.Ed. to Graduate converted from S.S.C. + D.Ed. to Graduate + B.Ed. / D.Ed. and they were given higher + B.Ed. / D.Ed. and they were given higher + B.Ed. / D.Ed. and they were given higher :3: pay scale in two stages." pay scale in two stages." pay scale in two stages." 3. Following the said decision, the Division Bench in Tukaram’s case (supra) it was held that: "We are of the opinion that in Schools "We are of the opinion that in Schools "We are of the opinion that in Schools having standards 1 to 7 it is permissible to having standards 1 to 7 it is permissible to having standards 1 to 7 it is permissible to appoint one teacher having B.Ed. / B.Sc. appoint one teacher having B.Ed. / B.Sc. appoint one teacher having B.Ed. / B.Sc. in terms of the Government Circular as now in terms of the Government Circular as now in terms of the Government Circular as now interpreted by this Court. Considering that interpreted by this Court. Considering that interpreted by this Court. Considering that all such teacher who were appointed and who all such teacher who were appointed and who all such teacher who were appointed and who possess graduate qualification with B.S., possess graduate qualification with B.S., possess graduate qualification with B.S., B.Sc., and also B.Ed. are entitled to be B.Sc., and also B.Ed. are entitled to be B.Sc., and also B.Ed. are entitled to be treated as trained teachers and will be treated as trained teachers and will be treated as trained teachers and will be continued to be paid salary as trained continued to be paid salary as trained continued to be paid salary as trained teachers." teachers." teachers." 4. Undisputedly, these ruling fairly apply to the facts of the case, in hand, and, therefore the present Petition deserves to be allowed for the reasons stated in Kondiba’s case as well as in Tukaram’s case, and, is accordingly hereby allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b) with no order as to costs. :4: (R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J. ) (R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J. ) (R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J. ) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.)