Bombay High Court
Shri. Madhukar Bapuraoji Pakmode ... vs The Education Officer (Sec.), ... on 12 June, 2017
Bench: I.K. Jain
wp.1164.16.jud 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.1164 OF 2016
01] Shri Madhukar Bapuraoji Pakmode,
Aged 55 years, Occ. Assistant Teacher.
02] Shri Ramesh s/o Harbaji Rasekar,
Aged 52 years, Occ. Assistant Teacher,
Both r/o Shivrao Nagar, Deshpande Wadi,
Rajura, Tah. Rajura, District Chandrapur. .... Petitioner
-- Versus -
01] The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur,
District Chandrapur.
02] The Adarsh Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
through its Teasurer, Rajura, District Chandrapur.
03] Prabhakar Paikaji Uike,
Aged 52 years,
R/o Prabhawati Nagar, Deshpande Wadi,
Rajura, Tah. Rajura, District Chandrapur.
04] Kewaram Tulsiram Dange,
Aged 52 years,
R/o Shivrao Nagar, Deshpande Wadi,
Rajura, Tah. Rajura, District Chandrapur. .... Respondent
Mrs. Kirti Satpute, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Shri A.M. Balpande, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1.
Shri A.D. Mohgaonkar, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
Shri Amit Kukdey, Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 & 4.
CORAM : KUM. INDIRA JAIN, J.
DATE : JUNE 12, 2017.
::: Uploaded on - 14/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2017 01:06:43 :::
wp.1164.16.jud 2
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
Leave to amend prayer clause.
02] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
03] This petition is directed against the order dated
12/01/2016 passed by respondent no.1-Education Officer
(Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur by giving finality to the
previous order dated 18/03/1999 in respect of seniority of the
employees.
04] Few facts relevant for the decision of writ petition may
be stated in nutshell as under :
i.Petitioners were appointed as untrained teachers in the
school run by respondent no.2 on 10/09/1987 and
01/07/1987. They required B.Ed. qualification on
16/06/1989 and continued as permanent teachers in
the same school.
::: Uploaded on - 14/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2017 01:06:43 :::
wp.1164.16.jud 3
ii.Respondent nos.3 and 4 were appointed as trained
teachers in the same school on 03/07/1989 and
01/07/1989. Seniority list was published by
respondent no.2 on 01/08/2013 and petitioners were
shown juniors to respondent nos.3 and 4.
iii.Petitioners raised objections on 21/11/2015 to the
seniority list. The same was decided by impugned
order dated 12/01/2016.
05] Mrs. Kirti Satpute, learned Counsel for petitioners at
the outset submits that petitioners do not want to press prayer
clause (iii) against respondent nos.3 and 4 and restrict the
petition to the direction to respondent no.1 to hear the
petitioners and decide the claim of seniority afresh.
06] It is evident from the order dated 18/03/1999 that
petitioners were not the parties to the decision taken by
respondent no.2 regarding seniority of employees. Petitioners
have placed on record copies of degree certificates. It appears
from the certificates that they acquired B.Ed. qualification on the
same day on which respondent nos.3 and 4 acquired B.Ed.
qualification.
::: Uploaded on - 14/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2017 01:06:43 :::
wp.1164.16.jud 4
07] Since petitioners acquired B.Ed. qualification on the
same date on which respondent nos.3 and 4 had acquired and
they were not parties to order dated 18/03/1999, it would be
appropriate to dispose of this petition by setting aside the
impugned order with direction to respondent no.1 to take
decision on seniority of employees afresh after giving them an
opportunity of hearing. Accordingly the following order :
ORDER
i.Writ Petition No.1164/2016 is allowed.
ii.Impugned order dated 12/01/2016 passed by
respondent no.1 is quashed and set aside.
iii.Respondent no.1 is directed to take decision afresh on
seniority of employees preferably within a period of
two months from today.
iv.Parties to appear before respondent no.1 on
21/06/2017.
v.Rule is made absolute in above terms with no order as
to costs.
*sdw JUDGE
