Judgment lpa202.10
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 202/2010
IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1380/1999
Shri F.F. Korde,
C/o. Rashtriya Adarsha Vidyalaya,
Navegaon Khairi, Tahsil Parshioni,
District Nagpur. ....APPELLANT
.
VERSUS
1. The Education Officer (Secondary)
Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.
2. Rashtriya Adarsha Vidyalaya,
Shikshan Mandal, through its President
Shri Anandrao Ramaji Deshmukh
r/o. Ramtek, Tahsil Ramtek,
District Nagpur.
3. Shri Pandurang s/o Mahadeorao Ghongde,
Aged about 50- years, Occ - Service,
resident of Navegaon Khairi,
Tahsil Parshioni, District Nagpur.
4. Shri R.B. Ambepawar,
5. Shri W.S. Sathone,
6. Smt. S.B. Kimmatkar
Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 residents of
c/o. Rashtriya Adarsha Vidyalaya,
Ramtek, Tah. Ramtek, District Nagpur. ....RESPONDENTS
.
::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2017 23:59:24 :::
Judgment lpa202.10
2
-----------------------------------
Mr. M.N. Thengre, Advocate for the Appellant.
Asstt. Govt. Pleader for Respondent No.1.
Mr. S.W. Sambre, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
Mr. H.A. Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
None for respondent nos. 4 to 6.
------------------------------------
CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI &
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : NOVEMBER 16, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT. (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J) Matter is part heard and today again we have heard learned counsel Shri Thengre, learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.P. for respondent no.1, Shri Sambre, learned Counsel for respondent no.2 and Shri Deshpande, learned Counsel for respondent no.3.
2. By inviting our attention to various judgments, learned counsel for the appellant submits that Rule 12 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 empowers the Education Officer to decide the dispute inter-se amongst teachers about seniority and such decision has been reached on 16.03.1999. That decision was never questioned and therefore, became final. It was acted upon in 2008, when ::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2017 23:59:24 ::: Judgment lpa202.10 3 respondent no.3 was promoted as Headmaster on 01.02.2008. Respondent no.3 Headmaster retired on superannuation on 30.06.1999, and thereafter, the appellant came to be promoted and retired in due course. Shri Thengre, learned counsel points out that because of this position, respondent no.3 did not receive salary as Headmaster.
3. He submits that having entered in service on 01.07.1985 with due qualifications, the appellant ought to have been treated as in Category "C" of Schedule-F of 1981 Rules from that day only. Respondent no.3 completes 10 years of Post Diploma in Education service on 01.08.1985 i.e. after appellant and enters Category "C" on said date. Therefore, he is junior to appellant. He reads out the impugned judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge holding respondent no.3 to be senior to submit that, facts have not been properly appreciated and qualifications of appellants which places it in Category "C", right from 01.07.1985 has been ignored. He has invited our attention to judgment of Division Bench of this Court reported at 1989 Mh.L.J. 951 (Saramma Varghese .vrs. Secretary/President SICES Society and others); judgments reported at 2016 (6) Mh.L.J. 576 (Sunil Gopalrao Pande and others .vrs. Amravati Zilla Parishad and others); 2013 (4) Mh.L.J. 657 (Pramod V. Ambatkar and another .vrs. Dy. Director of Education, Amravati ); and a un-reported judgment in Letters ::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2017 23:59:24 ::: Judgment lpa202.10 4 Patent Appeal Nos. 70/1999 and 71/1999, decided on 20.06.2012.
4. Against this Shri Deshpande, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.3 submits that appellant has actually joined on 15.07.1985 and on that date, though he was holding training qualification on physical education side, namely H.D.Ed., he lacked essential qualification of D.Ed. and hence, was not holding any post in middle school. With the result his services thereafter till 25.09.1986 cannot be looked into. For the first time on 25.09.1986, he is placed in 25% category post meant for a graduate trained teacher and hence, at the most his seniority after 25.09.1986 in Category "C" becomes relevant. He points out that since there is no dispute about inclusion of respondent no.3 in Category "C" from 01.08.1985, the learned Single Judge has rightly applied the law. He states that Diploma in Education is the essential, as held by this Court in 2000 (3) Mh.L.J. 605 (Jayashree Sunil Chavan .vrs. State of Maharashtra and others) and thereafter in later judgments. In this background he also relies upon Division Bench judgment in case of Sunil Gopalrao Pande and others .vrs. Amravati Zilla Parishad and others (supra), and other judgment in case of Saramma Varghese .vrs. Secretary/President SICES Society and others (supra). According to him, insistence of appellant to treat him as senior in this backdrop, is erroneous.
::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2017 23:59:24 :::
Judgment lpa202.10 5
5. Without prejudice, he submits that dispute regarding seniority between respondent no.3 and appellant was decided on 07.09.1994 by the Education Officer, after hearing both of them and in it the respondent no.3 was accepted as Senior. Later Education Officer on 16.03.1999 could not have therefore passed another order militating with said finding. This order is also passed without hearing respondent no.3 and therefore, it is unsustainable. He contends that in this situation, later order dated 16.03.1999 was ignored and earlier order dated 07.09.1994 was given effect to on 01.02.2008. Respondent no.3 was promoted as Headmaster. He therefore, seeks dismissal of Letters Patent Appeal and release of necessary benefits in favour of respondent no.3 for period from 01.02.2008 till 30.06.2009 with other consequential reliefs after superannuation.
6. Learned A.G.P. as also learned counsel for respondent no.1 submit that the dispute essentially is between the appellant and respondent no.3.
7. Various judgments to which our attention has been invited show a consistent stand that teacher in order to be qualified for computation of his seniority must be holding a post. If he is so eligible, he can be said to holding the post, and then his seniority can be counted from that date. Here, facts ::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2017 23:59:24 ::: Judgment lpa202.10 6 show that appellant was appointed in a middle school by order dated 01.07.1985, and he joined duties on 15.07.1985. At that time he was M.A. with H.D. Ed. This H. D.Ed. is training qualification on physical education side recognized and equivalent to B.Ed. The recruitment Rules need qualification of Diploma in Education, and as such appellant was not duly qualified on 15.07.1985 for holding any post in middle school. 25% post in Graduate Quota is given to him on 25.09.1986. The post is in graduate quota, and hence the appellant has been accepted as qualified only to work against it. In other words, he can demand for counting his services from 25.09.1986 only. His services rendered prior thereto cannot be reckoned for that purpose.
8. As against this, respondent no.3 was H.Sc., D.Ed. with Diploma in Education, LDT on 01.08.1975, when he joined services. Thus, he was fully qualified to hold the post in middle school on that date. He has obtained graduate qualification in 1984 and training qualification D.Ed. In 1989. Because of his training qualification on 01.08.1975, as per stipulation in entry no.4 in Category "C" on Schedule-F of 1981 Rules, after putting in 10 years of service, he enters Category "C" on 01.08.1985. Thus, he enters Category "C" before present appellant.
::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2017 23:59:24 :::
Judgment lpa202.10 7
9. In the impugned judgment, learned Single Judge has looked into all this niceties, as also relevant case law and then found respondent no.3 to be senior. The order of Education Officer passed earlier on 07.09.1994, therefore has been maintained and adverse orders passed on 16.03.1999 has been quashed and set aside.
10. No case is therefore made out warranting intervention. Letters Patent Appeal is therefore, dismissed.
11. Needless to mention that respondent no.3 is therefore, entitled to emoluments as Headmaster from 01.02.2008 to 30.06.1999, and his last pay for the purpose of computation of retiremental benefits and other terminal benefits, shall also be corrected accordingly. This exercise shall be completed within a period of four months.
12. With these directions, we dispose of the present Letters Patent Appeal. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rgd.
::: Uploaded on - 27/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2017 23:59:24 :::