1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY : AURANGABAD BENCH WRIT PETITION NO. 2901 OF 2008 Sau. Sarala w/o. Chandrakant Chaudhari, age 48 years, occ. service R/o. Plot No.18, Suvernatai Deshmukh Nagar, Chalisgaon, district Jalgaon. - - - Petitioner versus 1. Administrative Officer, Nagar Parishad Shikshan Mandal, Chalisgaon, dist. Jalgaon. 2. Gurukul Trust, Hirapur Road, Chalisgaon, District Jalgaon. 3. Harnatai Joshi Primary School, R/o. Vijay wadi, Chalisgaon, District Jalgaon. 4. Education Officer [Primary], Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon. 5. The Superintendent, Pay Unit [Primary], Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon. 6. The State of Maharashtra. - - Respondents. Shri L. V. Sangit, Advocate for the petitioner. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 absent though served. Shri N. B. Suryawanshi, Advocate for respondents Nos.4 to 5. Shri B. V. Wagh, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent No.6. 2 CORAM : B. R. GAVAI & N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. Dated : 29th September 2009 ORAL ORDER [ Per B. R. GAVAI, J. ] : 1. Leave to correct the affidavit. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 3. By way of present petition, the petitioner is seeking writ of mandamus directing respondents Nos.4 to 6 to grant trained graduate pay scale to the present petitioner from the date of her appointment i. e. from 1-6-1988 to 31-7-1993 as per the proposal submitted by Head Mistress of respondent No.3 school dated 8-9-2004. 4. The petitioner was appointed from 1-6-1998 as Assistant Teacher with respondent No.3 school. She was having B.A. B.Ed. qualification at the time of her appointment. The petitioner has been granted the scale of the trained teacher with effect from 1-8-1993. Proposal was sent by respondent No.3 to respondent No.6 for grant of pay scale of trained graduate teacher to the petitioner. 3 5. In response to the notice issued by this Court, respondents Nos.4 and 5 have filed affidavit in reply. The claim of the petitioner is denied on the ground that the petitioner was appointed against the post meant for S.S.C. D. Ed. and since she was not having D. Ed. qualification, she was not granted trained teacher's pay scale. It is stated in the reply that only in the year 1993, the petitioner has passed her B.A. B. Ed., and as such, from the said year the trained graduate teacher's pay scale was made applicable to her. In so far as the claim of the petitioner regarding trained graduate teacher is concerned, it is submitted that there is only one post available in that cadre and that there is already teacher senior to the petitioner who will have to be accommodated against the said post. 6. The Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra and others vs. Tukaram Tryambak Chaudhari and others reported in 2007 A.I.R. S.C.W. 1321, has held that even a B. Ed. teacher is required to be treated as qualified for the post meant for S.S.C., D. Ed. teacher. Even in view of certain Government Resolution, position is clear which permits B.A., B. Ed. to be appointed against the post meant for S.S.C., D. Ed. with only rider that teacher appointed against such post will be paid S.S.C., D. Ed. scale. 4 7. In that view of the matter, we find that the stand of the respondents in treating the teacher as untrained teacher from the date of her appointment till 1993 is not justified. 8. We, therefore, allow the petition with a direction to decide the proposal dated 8-09-2004 treating the petitioner as trained teacher from the date of her appointment till the scale of trained teacher was made applicable to her. The proposal to be decided within a period of six weeks from today and the arrears, if any payable to the petitioner, to be paid within a period of six weeks thereafter. 9. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. ( N. D. DESHPANDE, J. ) ( B. R. GAVAI, J. ) pnk/wp290108