1 W.P. 512/1999 - ( J ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 512 OF 1999 Chintaman S/o Daulat Labde Age : 50 Yrs., Occ. Service as Head Master, Sambhaji Vidyala Mandir, At Hingoli, Tq. Hingoli, Dist. Parbhani. .... PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Parbhani. 2. Panchasheel Shikshan Prasarak Mandal At Hingoli, Tq. Hingoli, \ Dist. Parbhani Through its President. 3. Shri. N.K.Bhalekar Age : 50 Yrs., Occ. Service as Assistant Teacher, Sambhaji Vidya Mandir At Hingoli, Tq. Hingoli, Dist. Parbhani. .... RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. S.R.Barlinge, Advocate for petitioner. Mr.B.N.Patil, Advocate for resp. no. 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 W.P. 512/1999 - ( J ) CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE: 09/08/2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : [ PER - B.R.GAVAI, J. ] 1. The petitioner has approached this Court praying for direction to respondent no. 1 to grant permanent approval to the promotion of the petitioner as Head Master w.e.f. 1/5/1998. 2. The petitioner and respondent no. 3 are working in the school run by respondent no. 2 – Society. The petitioner and respondent no. 3 have acquired qualification on one and the same date. In the seniority list prepared by respondent no. 2, it is shown that petitioner is senior to respondent no. 3. 3. Respondent no. 2 considering the petitioner to be senior most teacher, promoted the petitioner to the post of Head Master. Though initial approval was granted to the promotion of the petitioner, on the basis of the complaint made by respondent no. 3, respondent no. 1 did not grant permanent approval to the post of Head Master to the petitioner. 4. Mr. Barlinge, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 3 W.P. 512/1999 - ( J ) since the petitioner and respondent no. 3 have entered category ‘ C ’ on the same day, the interse seniority between them has to be decided on the basis of the date of birth. He submits that the elder person should get seniority. 5. Mr. Patil, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 on the contrary submits that since respondent no.3’s earlier entry in the service is prior to the petitioner, respondent no. 3 is entitled to be shown as senior to respondent no. 3. 6. Undisputedly, respondent no.3’s entry into service as un-trained teacher is 2 days prior to that of the petitioner. It is also not disputed that both have acquired B.Ed. qualification on 22/5/1972. As such, both of them would be getting entry in category ‘ C ’ on the same day. As such, the question would arise as to who is entitled to get seniority over another. The issue is no more ‘ res integra ’. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Narayan Korga Pujari V/s Gandhi Education Society and others reported in 2006 (6) Mh.L.J. - 476 interpreting clause 2 of Schedule F of the M.E.P.S. Rules, has observed thus, “ Plain reading of the Note 3 quoted above and the decision of the Division Bench in Saramma Varghese’s case (supra), therefore, leaves no room for doubt that in case of the trained teachers when 4 W.P. 512/1999 - ( J ) their entry in the said category is on the same day, their seniority is to be decided based on the age of such teachers having common entry date in such category. Obviously, therefore, irrespective of the other qualifications and irrespective of the date of appointment as the untrained teachers, moment more than one teacher becomes a trained graduate teacher on the same date, the inter se seniority will have to be decided with reference to the age of respective teachers. The eldest to be shown as senior most ”. 7. Applying the aforesaid principle of law as laid down by the Division Bench of this Court, since undisputedly both the petitioner and respondent no. 3 have entered into category ‘ C ’, their interse seniority would have to be determined on the basis of their date of birth. 8. The date of birth of the petitioner is 1/7/1948, whereas that of respondent no. 3 is 20/12/1948. Since the petitioner is elder to respondent no. 3 and since both of them have entered into category ‘ C ’, the petitioner is entitled to treated as senior to respondent no. 3. 9. In that view of the matter, we find that the petitioner is entitled to be shown as senior to respondent no. 3. The petitioner has in fact worked as Head Master and retired as such. 5 W.P. 512/1999 - ( J ) 10. In that view of the matter, Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause ‘ A ’. However, there shall be no order as to costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA ] [ B.R. GAVAI ] JUDGE JUDGE knp/ WP 512.99