Bombay High Court
Pawba Damu Dhangar vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 8 March, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
WP/7487/2015
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 7487 OF 2015
Pawba Damu Dhangar,
Age 55 years, Occ. Service,
R/o Chimthana, Tq. Sindhkhed,
District Dhule. ..Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
Department of School Education,
Mantralaya, Mumbai -32.
2. The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Dhule.
3. The Secretary,
Janata High School, Jimthana,
Tq. Sindhkhed, Dist. Dhule.
4. Shri Indarrao Narhar Zendu,
Age 51 years, Occ. Acting Head
Master, R/o Jimthana,
Tq. Sindhkhed, Dist. Dhule. ..Respondents
...
Advocates appearing for:-
Petitioner : Smt. Surekha Mahajan
Respondents 1 & 2 : Shri D.V.Tele, AGP and
Respondents 3 & 4 : Shri M.S.Deshmukh
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Reserved on : March 2, 2016
Pronounced on : March 8, 2016
JUDGMENT :-
1. Heard.
2. Rule.
WP/7487/2015
3. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of
the parties.
4. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.4.2015 passed by
the Eduction Officer (Respondent No.2 herein), by which, the objections to
the seniority list raised by the petitioner have been dealt with and
respondent No.4 herein has been declared to be senior to the petitioner. So
also, the petitioner has challenged the letter dated 19.6.2015.
5.
With regard to the tenability of this petition, Smt. Mahajan had
stated that the grievance of the petitioner was decided under Rule 12 and
the impugned order is delivered under Rule 12(3) of the MEPS Rules, 1981.
She stated that the management had not taken any decision of superseding
the petitioner pursuant to the passing of the impugned order. Hence, the
petition is maintainable.
6. In this backdrop, this Court had issued notice to the respondents.
7. On 21.10.2015, Smt. Mahajan made a statement that respondent No.3
has appointed respondent No.4 as an in-charge Headmaster, pursuant to the
impugned order. Shri Deshmukh, learned Advocate for the respondent
No.3 / management submits that no substantive appointment has been
made to the vacant post of Headmaster and respondent No.4 is purely
appointed as an in-charge Headmaster to avoid hampering the day-to-day
functioning of the educational institution.
WP/7487/2015
8. The petitioner contends that he is senior to respondent No.4. Smt.
Mahajan points out that the petitioner was a B.A. graduate of 1984 and
acquired M.A. qualification in 1989. He was a B.Ed. graduate of 1986. He
was appointed on 13.11.1989.
9. It is further submitted that respondent No.2 was H.S.C. with D.Ed.
when he was appointed on 13.11.1983. He acquired B.A. qualification in
1987 and B.Ed. qualification in 1996. As such, for considering the seniority
of the petitioner qua respondent No.4, the B.A., B.Ed. qualification is
significant. The petitioner though appointed on 13.11.1989 will be senior to
respondent No.4 as he acquired the B.Ed. qualification in 1996.
10. Smt. Mahajan submits that the dispute raised by the petitioner under
Rule 12 with regard to the seniority of the petitioner over respondent No.4
has been rejected by the impugned order dated 20.4.2015 on the ground
that respondent No.4 was held senior to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.6.1989 by
making the salary scale of the trained graduate teacher available to him
and that the petitioner had never challenged the said seniority list for 26
years.
11. Further grievance is that the petitioner was given the scale of trained
graduate teacher on 1.6.1990 after he was appointed on 13.11.1989. The
petitioner was, therefore, held junior to respondent No.4 only because the
salary scale of a trained graduate teacher was made available to him. The
WP/7487/2015
petitioner, therefore, places reliance upon the judgment of the learned
Division Bench of this Court in the matter Saramma Warghese Vs.
Secretary / President, SICES Society and others [1989 Mah.L.J. 951], to
support her contention that the learned Division Bench has ruled that higher
pay scale is not relevant for the purpose of fixation of seniority of Teachers.
She also relies upon the said judgment in the light of the observations of
the learned Division Bench that the order passed by the Education Officer
deciding the question of seniority, is amenable to the jurisdiction of this
Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
12. Shri Deshmukh, learned Advocate contends that the claim of the
petitioner has rightly been dismissed by the Education Officer on the ground
of delay as well as on the ground of the status acquired by respondent No.4
as a trained graduate teacher on 1.6.1989, before the appointment of the
petitioner for the first time as a teacher on 13.11.1989.
13. Shri Deshmukh relies upon the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent
No.4, wherein it has been contended on oath that respondent No.4 was
appointed as against the 25% quota available for up-gradation in the pay
scale as trained graduate teacher, after he was first appointed on
13.11.1983 in the D.Ed. scale. He was then upgraded w.e.f. 5.6.1989 vide
order dated 5.9.1990. Thus, he was placed in category "C" as per Schedule
"F" under MEPS Rules, 1981. He, therefore, prays for the dismissal of this
petition.
WP/7487/2015
14. I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates for the
respective sides.
15. The record reveals that respondent No.4 was placed in the pay scale
of trained graduate teacher from 1.6.1989. The petitioner was placed in
the trained graduate teacher category from 1.6.1990.
16. Record further reveals that the seniority list whenever declared /
published after 1.6.1990, when the petitioner was placed in the trained
graduate teacher category, respondent No.4 was shown senior to the
petitioner. Every such seniority list was signed by the petitioner in token of
his acceptance. There was no objection raised by the petitioner to such
seniority list for practically 26 years. It was only after respondent No.4
became eligible for appointment as a Headmaster, that the petitioner woke
up from his deep slumber and questioned the seniority of respondent No.4.
17. So also, the petitioner was placed in category "C" on 1.6.1990.
Respondent No.4 was placed in the said category w.e.f. 1.6.1989. This was
also not objected to by the petitioner for 26 years.
18. In the light of the above and besides the fact that respondent No.4
was placed in category "C" in Schedule "F" prior to the placement of the
petitioner, I am not entertaining this petition since the petitioner has not
questioned the seniority list and especially the seniority of respondent No.4
for the past 26 years. I, therefore, do not find that the impugned order
WP/7487/2015
passed by the Education Officer could be termed as being perverse or
erroneous.
19. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged.
(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
...
akl
