Bombay High Court
Smt.Anjali Ashok Samarth vs The Edn.Officer,Z.P.,Ngp. & 2 Ors on 8 August, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
Judgment. wp3467.02
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3467 OF 2002.
Smt. Anjali Ashok Samarth,
Aged about 47 years, Occupation -
Assistant Teacher, Bhiwapur
Education Society's Girls High
School, Bhiwapur, District
Nagpur. ..... PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1. The Education Officer,
(Secondary), Zilla Parishad,
Nagpur.
2. The Bhiwapur Education Society
through the Body of Fit Persons,
Bhiwapur, District Nagpur.
3. Smt. Manda V. Raghushe,
Principal, Bhiwapur Education Society's
Girls High School, Bhiwapur,
District Nagpur. ..... RESPONDENTS.
--------------------------
Shri Gaikwad, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri B.M. Lonare, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1.
Shri A. Parchure, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
None for Respondent No.2- Served.
--------------------------
Judgment. wp3467.02
CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI
& KUM. INDIRA JAIN,
JJ.
DATE : AUGUST 08, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.)
Petitioner - an Assistant Teacher in High School questions
supercession in the matter of promotion to the post of Headmistress
of a school run by respondent no.2. She has been superseded by
respondent no.3.
2. Shri Gaikwad, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner joined employment on 01.09.1980 in high school
as an Assistant Teacher with qualifications as Graduate and a
Trained person. Hence, right from day one her name was included
in Category "C" of Schedule-F in the seniority list prepared as per
Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service)
Rules, 1981.
3. Though respondent no.3 had joined earlier, she was
Judgment. wp3467.02
possessing Dip. Ed. (1 year) Course as training qualification and was
not graduate. She graduated in the year 1977. Hence, after she put
in 10 years of service i.e. in 1987, her name was entered in Category
"C" in the seniority list, as such she was junior to petitioner.
4. By the impugned order 02.05.2002, respondent no.1
Education Officer has granted approval to promotion of respondent
no.3 as Headmistress from 01.05.2002. This order is questioned by
contending that she has been inadvertently accepted as senior to
petitioner.
5. Shri Lonare, learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of
respondent no.1 and Shri Anand Parchure, learned Counsel for
respondent no.3 are opposing the petition. According to them,
respondent no.3 joined the employment on 01.07.2009 with S.S.C.,
Dip. Ed. Qualification. She obtained B.A. degree in 1977, hence,
computing 10 years of service from 1969, her name has been rightly
entered in Category "C" in 1979 i.e. prior to petitioner stepping in
the employment. Respondent no.3 is, therefore, senior to the
petitioner.
Judgment. wp3467.02
6. Perusal of communication dated 05.02.1988 sent by the
Director of Education to various Education Officers disclose that
teachers with S.T.C., Dip. Ed. or other training qualification should
be entered in Category "C" after 10 years of service. In that
resolution, training course Dip. T. (one year) also finds mention.
This communication therefore, reveals that the respondent no.3 who
has completed Dip.T. (one year) Course can sit in Category "C" only
after expiry of 10 years from 1977. The Management therefore, has
on 08.10.1990 rightly informed the present petitioner that
respondent no.3 could not have been senior to petitioner.
7. However, the respondent no.1 in reply affidavit before
this Court in paragraph no.5 has pointed out a government
resolution dated 04.05.1990 to support the action of granting
approval to respondent no.3. Respondent no.3 has filed reply
affidavit and in paragraph no.4 came up with a defence that as she
joined Dip. T. Course after completion of pre-university (first year of
college), her Dip. T. course has been treated as a course of two years
duration.
Judgment. wp3467.02
8. In view of this specific defence, we have heard the
respective counsel on the question - as to how a course of one year
duration can otherwise become a course of two years duration ?
Contents of Dip.T. Course cannot undergo any change, depending
upon previous qualification of a person admitted to it. Respondent
no.3 or then respondent no.1 could not justify this defence. Perusal
of Government Resolution dated 04.05.1990 also does not change
this position. It expressly requires a person holding STC etc.,
qualification to put in 10 years service after obtaining graduate
qualification.
9. We therefore, find that respondent no.3 could not have
entered the Category "C" before 1987. It therefore, follows that and
he has been erroneously treated as senior to petitioner and this has
resulted in supercession of claim of petitioner.
10. Petition has been filed before this Court in September,
2002 and it also contains an interim prayer, however, this Court has
not granted any interim relief. Petitioner was 47 years old therein
Judgment. wp3467.02
and therefore, is about 61 years as of now. She has already been
superannuated. Respondent no.3 was 58 years on 14.08.2006,
therefore, she has obviously been superannuated.
11. Shri Parchure, learned counsel at this stage upon
instructions states that respondent no.3 has not been paid salary as
headmistress and her pension also has been fixed as Assistant
Teacher.
12. In this situation, we find that interest of justice can be met
with by directing respondent no.1 to release salary of respondent
no.3 as Headmistress for the work done by her till her
superannuation and to compute her retiremental benefits
accordingly.
13. As we have found that petitioner should have been
promoted as headmistress in place of respondent no.3 from
01.05.2002 till her superannuation, she will be also entitled to salary
fixed accordingly on the post of Headmistress with necessary
increments, but, for the period after superannuation of respondent
Judgment. wp3467.02
no.3 and till her superannuation. Her pension and other benefits
shall also be worked out accordingly. Respondent no.2 Management
is therefore, directed to supply necessary documents to the office of
respondent no.1 within a period of four weeks from today.
14. The respondent no.1 shall thereafter complete further
exercise within a period of 6 months. Parties are given liberty to
challenge the said exercise if they are aggrieved by it. Writ Petition
is, thus partly allowed and disposed of. Rule is made absolute in the
aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rgd.
Judgment. wp3467.02
CERTIFICATE
I certify that this judgment/order uploaded is a true and
correct copy of original signed judgment/order.
Uploaded by : R.G. Dhuriya. Uploaded on : 10.08.2016
