( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4706 OF 2007 Digambar s/o Mohanrao Jadhav, Assistant Teacher, Madhyamik Ashram School, Kuntur Tanda, Tq. Naigaon, Dist. Nanded. PETITIONER VERSUS Eknath s/o Dattaram Didshere and others. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. R.D. Mane, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.M. Nagargoje, advocate holding for Mr. R.J. Godbole, advocate for respondent No. 1. Mr. T.S. Lodhe, AGP for respondents No. 3, 4 and 5. ..... WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2623 OF 2007 President, Shrikrashna Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Kuntur Tanda, Tq. Naigaon, District Nanded PETITIONER VERSUS Eknath s/o Dattaram Didshere and others RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. V.G. Gangapurwala, advocate holding for Mr. W.S. Jadhav, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.M. Nagargoje, advocate holding for Mr. R.J. Godbole, advocate for respondent No. 1. Mr. T.S. Lodhe, AGP for respondents No. 3, 4 and 5. ..... ( 2 ) [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 22nd January, 2010] PER COURT : 1. These petitions arise out of the judgement rendered by the School Tribunal, Latur, in Appeal No. 32/2006 (old No. 70/2003). The petitions were peremptorily heard for final disposal. 2. Petitioner – Digambar challenges the judgement of the School Tribunal in Writ Petition No. 4706/2007 on the ground that he being senior most employee of the Educational Institution, was the only qualified and eligible person to be appointed as Head Master instead of respondent No. 1 – Eknath. The Educational Institution has also challenged the reinstatement of respondent No. 1 – Eknath as Head Master of the school by filing Writ Petition No. 2623/2007. 3. The dispute arises on account of competing claims between petitioner Digambar and respondent No.1 ( 3 ) Eknath. There is no dispute about the fact that petitioner – Digambar was appointed as teacher in Primary School and acquired B.Ed. qualification in 1987. He was appointed as Head Master of the Primary School on 21-06-1990. Indisputably, the school was then non-aided school. He served as Head Master for two consecutive years 1991-1992 and 1992-1993. His services were terminated on 25th September, 1994. He challenged the order of termination by filing an appeal (appeal No. 189/1994). In the meanwhile, the order of termination was withdrawn. He was subsequently allowed to join the duty. Somewhere in 1992, the Educational Society started Madhyamik Ashram School. The grievance of the petitioner – Digambar is that he was the senior most teacher and, therefore, ought to have been appointed as Head Master of the Madhyamik School. Instead, respondent No. 1 – Eknath was appointed as such. Considering his grievances, the Educational Society reverted respondent No.1 - Eknath from the post of Head Master to the post of Assistant Teacher. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent No. 1 – Eknath preferred appeal before the School Tribunal. His appeal (appeal No. 32/2006) was allowed ( 4 ) by the impugned order. As a natural corollary, petitioner – Digambar was not appointed as Head Master of the Madhyamik School, and hence, he has preferred the present writ petition whereas the Educational Society also has preferred petition for the reason that the reversion of respondent No. 1 – Eknath was justified. 4. Heard learned counsel. 5. The only material point involved in these petitions is whether petitioner – Digambar can claim post of Head Master of the Madhyamik School i.e. Secondary School as a matter of right. There is no dispute about the fact that he is educationally qualified. There is also no dispute about the fact that he was senior school teacher in the context of the primary section of the school. The legal position is that the primary section and secondary section of the school are different for all the purposes and, therefore, seniority list of the teachers in the primary section is required to be separately maintained from the seniority list to be maintained for the teachers in the ( 5 ) secondary section of the school. In other words, petitioner – Digambar may be senior most qua the teachers employed and working in the primary section of the school. Still, however, his seniority position in the primary school of the school is not relevant when the question of seniority of teachers in the secondary section of the school is required to be considered. It is well settled that the seniority lists of these two different sections of the school cannot be intermingled and there is no mixed cadre as such. The policy of the Government is reflected in Government Circular dated 20th January, 1987. On perusal of relevant paragraph (4), it is manifest that the teachers employed in primary section of the school will not be entitled to get benefit of the seniority position in the primary school for the purpose of counting their service in the secondary school, on their appointment in the secondary school. It is obvious that the past service of petitioner – Digambar could not be counted for the purpose of seniority in the secondary school because he had worked in the primary section. In other words, he could not have marched over respondent No.1 – Eknath ( 6 ) while considering their claims for the post of Head Master. The School Tribunal has duly considered the relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and the Rules thereunder. The qualifications and appointment of “Head” as envisaged in Rule-3 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 would make it clear that for appointment as Head of a primary school, the school teacher must be a senior most trained teacher who has put in not less than five years’ service. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule-3 will make it clear that for appointment of “Head” of a secondary school, if there is no person with the teaching experience mentioned in clause (b) of sub- Rule (1) available on the staff of the school, the Management is required to apply to the Deputy Director for regularization of the requirement. In the present case, the appointment of the respondent No. 1 – Eknath as Head of the secondary school was approved by the Education Officer and, therefore, the question whether he had five years’ experience of teaching is of no much importance. I am of the opinion that the impugned ( 7 ) judgement of the School Tribunal is quite proper, legal and sustainable. Hence, both the petitions are without merits. 6. In the result, both the petitions are dismissed. No costs. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/wp4706-2623-07