1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2385 OF 2007 Shaikh Yakub S/o Shaikh Ayub, Age : 47 Years, Occu. : Service, R/o Labour Colony, Nanded. .. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Principal Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya Mumbai. 2. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded. 3. Baital Ullom Primary School, Nai Abadi, Nanded, Through its Head Master. 4. Baital Ullom Education Society, Nai Abadi Nanded, Through its President. 5. Mirza Daud Baig, Age : 57 Years, Occu. : Service, R/o Baital Ullom Education Society, Nai Abadi Nanded, 2 6. Smt. Faijunnisa Begum, Age : 52 Years, Occu. : Service, R/o As above. 7. Smt. Sultana Begum, Age : 53 Years, Occu. : Service, R/o As above. 8. Smt. Shamshad Begum, Age : 51 Years, Occu. : Service, R/o As above. 9. Shri Mrza Rasul, Age : 48 Years, Occu. : Service, R/o As above. .. .. Respondents Shri Arvind Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Smt. B. R. Khekale, A.G.P. for the Respondent No. 1. Shri V. S. Panpatte, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. The respondents No. 3 to 5 and 9 served. Shri M. Y. Khan, Advocate h/f Shri A.T.A. K. Shaikh, Advocate for the Respondents No. 6 to 8. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2404 OF 2007 Rashida Begum Mohd. Ahemed Siddiqui Age : 46 Years, Occu. : Service, R/o Labour Colony, Nanded. .. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, 3 Through Principal Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya Mumbai. 2. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded. 3. Baital Ullom Primary School, Nai Abadi, Nanded, Through its Head Master. 4. Baital Ullom Education Society, Nai Abadi Nanded, Through its President. 5. Mirza Daud Baig, Age : 57 Years, Occu. : Service, R/o Baital Ullom Education Society, Nai Abadi Nanded, 6. Smt. Faijunnisa Begum, Age : 52 Years, Occu. : Service, R/o As above. 7. Smt. Sultana Begum, Age : 53 Years, Occu. : Service, R/o As above. 8. Smt. Shamshad Begum, Age : 51 Years, Occu. : Service, R/o As above. 4 9. Shri Mrza Rasul, Age : 48 Years, Occu. : Service, R/o As above. .. .. Respondents Shri Arvind Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Smt. B. R. Khekale, A.G.P. for the Respondent No. 1. Shri V. S. Panpatte, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. The respondents No. 3 to 5 Served. Shri M. Y. Khan, Advocate for the Respondents No. 6 to 9. CORAM : A. P. DESHPANDE, AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 26TH FEBRUARY, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT [Per A. P. DESHPANDE, J. ] : 01. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing by consent of parties. 02. It is the case of the petitioners that petitioners were appointed as an assistant teachers by an order dated 30th June, 1982. Since the initial appointment, the petitioners were possessing qualification of S.S.C. D. Ed. and thus were trained teacher. From the affidavit filed by the Education Officer in reply, it is seen that there has been drastic reduction in number 5 of the students admitted to the school, resulting in consequential reduction of sanctioned strength of the teaching staff. This situation warranted declaring some of the teachers as excess. With a view to absorb them in some other recognized and aided school, seniority list was prepared. It also appears that the petitioners apprehending an action of they being declared as excess teachers, approached the Education Officer by making representation dated 09th April, 2007, requesting to decide the interse seniority of employees. As the Education Officer did not accede to the request made by the petitioners these writ petitions have been filed. 03. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the seniority of the primary school teachers need to be determined from the date on which the teacher acquires the training qualification as held in Full Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2006(6) Mh.L.J. page 682. The learned counsel for the petitioners is pressing these petitions only to the extent of prayer Clause "B" and "C" and has expressly given up rest of the prayers and reliefs claimed in rest of the prayers. It is also submitted that determination of question of seniority would not only be relevant for the purposes of declaring employee excess, 6 but would also be relevant as and when an excess teacher absorbed, elsewhere seek repatriation, on creation or revival of posts in parent institution in future. 04. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the petitions to the extent they seek writ of mandamus to command respondent No. 2 to finalize interse seniority of teachers deserves to be allowed. In the result, we direct the respondent No. 2 to decide the seniority of the petitioners in the light of Full Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2006(6) Mh.L.J. page 682 after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and other concerned teachers. It is clarified that this order deal with only prayer Clause "B" and "C" as other prayers are given up by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Needless to mention here that interim orders stand vacated. The rule is made absolute in above terms with no order as to costs. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [A. P. DESHPANDE, J.] bsb/Feb.2010