IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPEALLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Writ Petition No. 5463 of 2009 Badar Sultana d/o Mirza Munwar Ali Baig ... Petitioner V E R S U S The State of Maharashtra and others. ... Respondents ... Mr. V. P. Patil, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. R.P. Phatke, Addl Govt. Pleader for respondent No.1 Mr. V.S. Panpatte, Advocate for respondents No.2 & 3 ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL & K.U. CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATE: 11th December, 2009 PER COURT : 1. The petitioner’s contention is that she was appointed on 15th June, 1983, whereas respondent No. 6 on 1st January, 1981 as Teachers of respondent No. 4 – School. According to the petitioner, she acquired qualification as S.S.C. D.Ed. on the day of appointment, whereas respondent No.6 acquired qualification of D.Ed. in the year 1987. The petitioner has objection to seniority list relied by the Management and the Education Officer. The petitioner raised dispute regarding the seniority list. A Committee of responsible officers was appointed in this regard. The Committee visited the Management and tried to inquire into the matter. The Committee communicated ( 2 ) decision that in view of non co-operation of the Management, the Education Officer to prepare the seniority list as per Rule 12 (1) (2) of the M.E.P.S. Rules. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Management did not produce the entire record before the Committee or Education Officer. 3. The learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 submitted that in the year 2006, the issue of respondent No. 6, as regards his seniority, was settled by the order dated 12th September, 2006, passed by the Education Officer. A copy of said order is placed on record today and marked as ‘X’. It was submitted on behalf of the Zilla Parishad that the petitioner is relieved as she was surplus by communication dated 30th December, 2008, but the petitioner has not joined at her transferred place Dharmabad, which is 150 k.m. away from Nanded. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is highly inconvenient for the petitioner to join such a remote place. 4. Prima facie, we are of the view that the authorities shall in the facts of the case, first settle issue of seniority list and finalize it strictly in accordance with the record and the Law, in terms of Rule 12 (1) (2) of M.E.P.S. Rules. In case, the Education Officer or any competent authority finds that the Management is non co-operative, then strict action is required to be taken by the Education Officer or the higher authorities by stoppage of grant or issue show cause notice for derecognition. Departmental discipline is required to be followed by all ( 3 ) concerned, more particularly, when the Schools are getting grants in aid from the Government. We, therefore, direct the Education Officer to finalize the seniority list of respondent No.4-School within four months from today after hearing all concerned parties including the petitioner, respondent No.6, any other teacher and the representative of the Management, and submit the report to the Deputy Director, Education, Latur. We direct the Deputy Director, Education, Latur to supervise the exercise of finalization of seniority list undertaken by the Education Officer under orders of this Court, and even take action, in case, Deputy Director finds non-cooperation on the part of Education Officer. The petitioner shall join the transferred place which should be subject to finalization of the seniority list. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of. 5. The Registry is directed to forward copy of this order to the Deputy Director, Education, Latur. 6. Additional Government Pleader to communicate the order to Deputy Director, Education, Latur. 7. Copy of this order be supplied to the Additional Government Pleader duly authenticated by the Court Shirestedar. ( K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.) srm/wp/5463/09