WP/8792/2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8792 OF 2010 The Progressive Education Society, Pune ... Petitioner V/s. Nitin Dattatraya Surve & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. S.V. Pitre for the Petitioner. Mr. A.M. Joshi for Respondent No.1. Mr. S.N. Bhosle, AGP, for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE : 11 TH FEBRUARY, 2011. P.C. : 1. This Writ Petition has been preferred against the order of the School Tribunal, Pune dated 7th August, 2010 passed in Miscellaneous Application No.1 of 2010. The respondent No.1-Teacher had preferred an Appeal, being Appeal No.77 of 2006, which was decided on 25th February, 2008. The operative part of the said order reads as under : “1. Appeal is hereby partly allowed. 2. Respondent is hereby directed to consider the Appellant’s claim as per seniority in view of the G.Rs. dated 09/07/1987 and 17/12/1991, for the post of 25% quota of Trained Graduates for the standards V to VII which becomes vacant/newly created after this appeal was WP/8792/2010 2 instituted i.e. 28/09/2006 and pay his back wages of difference of pay. It shall pay the Appellant Rs.1000/- (One Thousand Only) towards costs of this appeal and bear own costs. 3. In the Seniority List, Respondent No.1 shall place the Appellant in category-C of schedule-F from the date on which he will be appointed in Trained Graduates i.e. 25% quato post. 4. Respondent No.1 shall comply with this order in Forty Five days from today. 5. The appeal is hereby dismissed against Respondent no.3 with costs of Rs.500/- (Five Hundred only) payable by Appellant. No. order is passed as to costs of Respondent no.2 and 3.” 2. It appears that the respondent No.1-Teacher has preferred Writ Petition No.5801 of 2008 which has been admitted on 17th July, 2009. 3. As the order of the School Tribunal in the aforesaid Appeal was not implemented, the respondent No.1-Teacher preferred Miscellaneous Application No.1 of 2010 before the School Tribunal. It was contended that the petitioner had promoted persons who were junior to him and had granted them the “Trained Graduate Scale” in the quota for Trained Graduate Teachers. 4. This application was opposed by the petitioner contending that it had considered the respondent No.1-Teacher for the post and it was found that he was not suitable. The School Tribunal, on a consideration of the reasons given by the petitioner, has concluded that despite specific directions in the Appeal, the WP/8792/2010 3 petitioner had chosen not to appoint the respondent No.1-Teacher and had instead upgraded persons who were junior to him. 5. In my view, there is no need to interfere with this order. The School Tribunal has found on the basis of the material before it that one Mrs. A.V. Gaikwad was appointed on the B. Ed. Scale on 6th December, 1994 and she was qualified with the B.Ed. Degree in the year 2000. She was granted the Trained Graduate Scale from 1st July, 2009. However, from the seniority list filed by the petitioner, it was found that Mrs. A.V. Gaikwad was junior to the respondent No.1, despite which he has not upgraded in the Trained Graduate Scale. 6. The Writ Petition is rejected. 7. The time to comply with the order dated 7th August, 2010 passed by the School Tribunal, Pune in Miscellaneous Application No.1 of 2010 is extended by four weeks from today.