Bombay High Court
Purushottam Parshram Masurkar vs Sant Narhari Shikshan Sanstha ... on 15 October, 2016
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
wp3024.08.J.odt 1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.3024 OF 2008
Purushottam Parsharam Masurkar
R/o Zadgaon, Tq. Sakoli,
Dist. Bhandara. ....... PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1]
Sant Narhari Shikshan Sanstha,
through its Secretary,
Sakoli, Dist. Bhandara.
2] Shri A.P. Domale,
Head Master, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru
Vidyalaya, Sangadi, Tq. Sakoli,
Dist. Bhandara.
3] Shri B.M. Gohane
Head Master Natrayanrao Domale
Vidyalaya, Kumhali, Tq. Sakoli,
Dist. Bhandara.
4] Shri M.T. Landge,
Head Master, Sarswati Vidyalaya,
Barva, Tq. Lakhandur, Dist. Bhandara.
5] The Education Officer (Sec.),
Zilla Parishad, Bhandara. ....... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Rohit Vaidya, Advocate h/f Shri Anand Parchure,
Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri S.R. Charpe, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Mrs. Geeta Tiwari, AGP for Respondent No.5.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2016 00:22:06 :::
wp3024.08.J.odt 2/6
CORAM: R.K. DESHPANDE, J.
th OCTOBER, 2016.
DATE: 15
ORAL JUDGMENT
1] The School Tribunal has dismissed Appeal
No.STC-103 of 1998 filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the
Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service)
Regulation Act, 1977 challenging the promotions of the
respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 to the post of Head Master of the
School in supersession of his claim. Hence, the original appellant
is before this Court challenging the order of the School Tribunal.
2] The factual position not in dispute is as under:
The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher
initially on 25.06.1990 on temporary basis and then he was
confirmed in service w.e.f. 21.06.1993. At the time of his initial
appointment on temporary basis on 25.06.1990, he was qualified
as B.A. B.Ed. and was a trained graduate teacher. The respondent
No.2 was initially appointed on temporary basis on 27.06.1988
and was confirmed on the post on 21.06.1993. Though, he was
possessing the qualification of graduation at the time of his initial
wp3024.08.J.odt 3/6
appointment in the year 1988, he acquired training qualification of
B.Ed. on 13.08.1993. The respondent No.3-B.M. Gohane was
initially appointed on temporary basis on 22.06.1987 and was
confirmed in service on 20.06.1994. Though, at the time of his
initial appointment, he was possessing the qualification of B.A., he
acquired the training qualification of B.Ed. in the year 1994.
The respondent No.4-M.T. Landge was initially appointed as an
Assistant Teacher on 25.06.1990, when he was possessing the
qualification of B.A. He acquired the training qualification of B.Ed.
in the year 1991 and was confirmed in service on 21.06.1993.
The seniority of all these employees including the petitioner has
been counted from the date of their regular appointment on the
post as an Assistant Teacher. The seniority list of the petitioner,
the respondent No.2-A.P. Domale and the respondent No.4-M.T.
Landge is counted w.e.f. 21.06.1993, whereas the seniority of the
respondent No.3-B.M. Gohane is counted from 20.06.1994.
3] The respondent No.2 was promoted as Head Master
on 25.12.1995, the respondent No.3 was promoted as Head
Master on 26.06.1995 and the respondent No.4-M.T. Landge was
lastly promoted as Head Master on 21.01.1997. The appeal
challenging all these promotions was filed on 17.08.1998.
wp3024.08.J.odt 4/6
4] Except the statement in para 6 of the memo of appeal
that the appellant approached the respondent No.5-Education
Officer (Sec.), Zilla Parishad, Bhandara to decide the seniority as
per Rule 12 read with Schedule-F of the Maharashtra Employees
of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 by sending
letters dated 16.10.1997, 28.11.1997, 04.03.1998, 05.03.1998,
23.03.1998, 03.06.1998 and 08.06.1998, there is no explanation
furnished for the delay and laches in approaching the School
Tribunal to challenge such promotions. Obviously, the
representations to the Education Officer were for making
corrections in the seniority list and the Education Officer had no
jurisdiction to set aside the order of supersession in the matter of
promotion. Unless the challenge was raised to the orders of
promotion of the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 within a reasonable
time, no fault can be found with the view taken by the School
Tribunal in dismissing the appeal. The rights were accrued in
favour of the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4.
5] In view of above, no interference is called for.
The writ petition is dismissed.
wp3024.08.J.odt 5/6
Civil Application (W) No.2289/2016:
By this civil application the petitioner wanted to bring
on record certain documents which pertained to the seniority list
of 2014-2015 and also the certificate of one Shri P.P. Domle on
record. Shri P.P. Domle was not party to the appeal preferred
before the School Tribunal. In view of this, if the documents
produced along with the application give rise to the subsequent
cause of action for preferring an appeal challenging the promotion
of Shri P.P. Domle, it shall be open for the petitioner to raise such
a grievance in the appropriate forum.
Civil application stands disposed of.
JUDGE
NSN
wp3024.08.J.odt 6/6
C E R T I F I C A T E
"I certify that this Judgment uploaded is a true and
correct copy of original signed Judgment."
Uploaded by : Uploaded on : 20.10.2016.
N.S. Nikhare, P.A.
