1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 923 of 2011 [Ku. Shobha N. Ingale Vs. Gajanan Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and others] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. P.N. Shende, Adv., for the petitioner. Mr. N.D. Khamborkar, Adv., for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Mr. V.A. Thakre, AGP for respondent nos. 3 and 4. ----- CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATE : 29th September, 2011. 1. Heard finally. 2. Entitlement of petitioner to upgradation and graduate pay-scale has been recognized by Education Department since 3rd February, 1994. Management, however, did not implement those directions. Petitioner has produced before us subsequent direction issued on 14th June, 1999 and thereafter on 12th August, 2011, i.e., during pendency of petition. Grievance of petitioner is, petitioner is graduate and also possesses training qualification, namely H.D.Ed. [Bifocal] and is, 2 therefore, eligible for upgradation. 3. Learned AGP appearing for respondent nos. 3 and 4 points out that in the reply filed before this Court, stand taken is non- availability of post for petitioner and, therefore, petition is being opposed. Learned Adv. Mr. Khamborkar appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 2 is also taking the same stand. 4. Adv. Mr.Khamborkar points out that in the High School, there is already a Physical Training Instructor [PTI] and he is having full workload and, therefore, in High School, there is no workload for the petitioner and hence she cannot be upgraded against 25 per cent quota post. 5. A graduate post is available in Middle School only for a trained graduate teacher. It is not the case either of Education Officer or Management that in Middle School, there is no workload for petitioner. Petitioner is already a Full-time Teacher in Middle School having requisite workload. If a post in 25 per cent quota is available in the Middle School, the petitioner is entitled to be upgraded against that post. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention to the Judgment dated 5th December, 2002 passed by this Court in Letters 3 Patent Appeal No. 44 of 2002 where equivalence of similar course [H.D.Ed. (Bifocal)] with B.Ed. has been looked into by this Court. It is not necessary for us to go into the same, because that is not the reason for denying upgradation to petitioner. 7. In this situation, the Education Officer [respondent no.3] has to find out whether a post is available in 25 per cent quota for petitioner in Middle School. If such post is available, petitioner needs to be upgraded forthwith. 8. The petitioner has chosen to approach this Court almost after seventeen years. In this situation, the upgradation, if given, shall be prospective and the petitioner shall not be entitled to claim any arrears on that count. 9. Petition is, thus, partly allowed. No costs. Judge Judge |Hedau|