1 wp-9454-10.doc pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9454 OF 2010 Shri Tukaram Nana Sudarshani ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and ors. ...Respondents Mr. S.S. Pakale i/by Mr. Kirankumar J. Phakade for petitioner. Ms. S.S. Bhende, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 4. Mr. N. V. Bandiwadekar for respondent no.7. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. August 16, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard Mr. Pakale, the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is an Assistant Teacher with respondent no.6 – School, which is run by the respondent no.5 – Society. He is aggrieved by the seniority list published on 3/2/2010 by respondent no.6. 2 wp-9454-10.doc 3. Against the said seniority list, petitioner had submitted a representation to respondent no.4 and the same has been turned down on 2/9/2010 confirming the seniority list published by respondent no.6. The petitioner claims that he must be marked senior to respondent nos.7 and 8. 4. The Deputy Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur as well as respondent no.7 have filed affidavit-in-reply and they have opposed the petition. 6. By the petitioner’s own contentions he passed his SSC Examination in 1975 and the D.Ed. Examination in 1978. He came to be appointed as an Assistant Teacher by respondent no.5 with effect from 1/2/1979 when his qualifications were SSC D.Ed. He joined as an external student and completed his B.A. Degree in 1986. He applied to respondent no.5 for permission to join the D.Ed. Course and he completed the same in 1988. However, he continued to be a teacher in the D.Ed. Scale till 9/6/1988 and it is only from 10/6/1988 he was made an Assistant Teacher in the secondary school. Mr. Pakale, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following two decisions of this 3 wp-9454-10.doc court:- (a) Pramod Devaram Bhangale vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. [ 2006 (5) Mh. L.J. 110]. (b) Saramma Varghese vs. Secretary/President, S.I.C.E.S. Society and ors. [ 1990 (I) CLR 46] However, in our considered opinion, none of these judgments are applicable to the facts of the petitioner’s case. Mr. Bandivadekar, the learned counsel for the respondent no.7 relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Ashok Narayan Sathe vs. Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Solapur and ors. [2007 (4) Mh.L.J. 358]. 7. Schedule – F to the MEPS Rules 1981 has laid down the guide-lines for fixation of seniority of teachers in the secondary schools and junior college of education etc. The petitioner was never appointed as a Category “C” teacher at any time till 10/6/1988. At the same time, respondent no.7 has been appointed as an Assistant Teacher in secondary school (trained graduate) with effect from 1/7/1987 and on appointed he held the qualifications of B.Sc. B.Ed. Respondent No. 8 was appointed 4 wp-9454-10.doc on 5/9/1988 when he held the qualifications of B.A. B.Ed. and thus became a trained graduate Assistant Teacher in the secondary school. Till 10/6/1988 the petitioner was never appointed as a trained graduate Assistant Teacher and he has not made any representation to any competent authority for his not being considered for the B.Ed. scale prior to 9/6/1988 and if such a representation was rejected, he had the remedy to challenge the same. Having so kept quiet till 10/6/1988, now he cannot be allowed to turn up and challenge the seniority of respondent nos.7 and 8 and claim that he must be treated to be a Category “C” teacher in the secondary school either from 1986 or 1988. We are, therefore, satisfied that the Education Officer has rightly considered the representation submitted by the petitioner and confirmed the impugned seniority list. 8. The petition must, therefore, fail at the threshold and the same is hereby rejected summarily. (SMT. NISHITA MHATRE J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)