1 aswp-9221-10 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9221 OF 2010 Shivali Sanjay Shinde .. Petitioner Vs. Education Inspector and ors. .. Respondents Mr. Sunil D. Dighe for petitioner. Mr. C.R. Sonawane, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 6. Mr. S.K. More with Mr. Amol B. Desai for respondent no.4. Ms. Pranali Khamkar i/by Mr. R.V. Sankpal for respondent no.5. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & SMT. NISHITA MHATRE JJ. AUGUST 23, 2011. P.C. 1. We have heard Mr. Dighe, the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner impugns the order passed by the Education Officer on 11/6/2010. The Education Officer adjudicated the issue of the inter se seniority between the petitioner and respondent no.4 and held by the impugned order that respondent no.4 would be senior to the petitioner. 2 aswp-9221-10 2. Admittedly, both the petitioner and respondent no.4 came to be appointed on 13/6/1996 as primary school teachers with HSC D.Ed. Qualifications. While in service, the petitioner obtained the B.A. Degree in 2003 and she further obtained the B.Ed. degree in 2009. Whereas the respondent no.4 obtained his B.A. degree in 2008 and he does not possess the B.Ed. qualification. In the year 2009, there was a vacancy available for a trained graduate teacher for 8th to 10th standards in the respondent – school and against that the respondent no.4 came to be appointed. The petitioner raised a dispute on this appointment on the ground that she was senior to respondent no.4 and she ought to have been considered in his place. We do not find any merit in these submissions. 3. As noted earlier, both of them joined on the same day with same qualifications. However, the date of birth of respondent no.4 is 1/5/1972 as against the date of birth of the petitioner as 9/2/1974. Thus, the respondent no.4 being an elder teacher, was marked senior to the petitioner and rightly so. In the year 2009 both of them i.e. the petitioner as well as the respondent no.4 became graduate trained teachers and if respondent no. 4 was appointed against the available vacancy, his claim was rightly 3 aswp-9221-10 considered. In these obtaining circumstances, the Education Officer cannot be faulted with in taking a view that respondent no.4 is senior to the petitioner. Mr. Dighe the learned counsel for the petitioner tried to canvass before us that as the petitioner obtained the graduation degree (B.A. Degree) before respondent no.4, she should be treated senior. This submission is dehorse the provision of the MEPS Rules. 4. Hence, the petition must fail at the threshold and the same is hereby rejected. (SMT. NISHITA MHARTE J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)