Bombay High Court
Rajesh S/O Gulabrao Malkhede vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 29 March, 2017
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
wp2161.15.J.odt 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.2161 OF 2015
Rajesh s/o Gulabrao Malkhede,
Aged 48 years, Occ: Service,
Graduate Teacher, Nagar Parishad
Upper Primary School No.1,
Narkhed, District Nagpur. ....... PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1] The State of Maharashtra, through its
Secretary, School Education and Sports
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2] The Director of Primary Education,
State of Maharashtra, Central Building,
Pune.
3] The Deputy Director of Education,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur.
4] The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.
5] Regional Director of Municipal
Administration, Nagpur.
6] Nagar Parishad, Narkhed, through
its Chief Executive Officer, Narkhed.
7] Mrs. Meenakshi w/o Jivanrao Sarode,
Aged Major, Occ: Graduate Teacher,
Nagar Parishad, Upper Primary School
No.1, Narkhed, District Nagpur. ....... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri B.G. Kulkarni, Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri M.M. Ekre, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5.
Shri M.I. Dhatrak, Advocate with Shri S.A. Sahu, Advocate
for Respondent No.6.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 31/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2017 00:54:47 :::
wp2161.15.J.odt 2/4
CORAM: R.K. DESHPANDE, J.
th MARCH, 2017.
DATE: 29
ORAL JUDGMENT
1] Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties.
2] The petitioner joined the service as Primary School
Teacher on 17.09.1999, whereas the respondent No.7 joined said
post on 12.07.1991. Both of them possessed the qualification of
D.Ed. at the time of their initial appointment. The question is
about their inter se seniority. The respondent No.7 has been held
to be senior to the petitioner on the basis of her acquiring B.Ed.
qualification in the year 1996. The petitioner acquired B.Ed.
qualification in the year 1998, and therefore, the petitioner is held
to be junior to the respondent No.7.
3] The present case is concerned with counting of
seniority in the post of Primary School Teacher. Such a
controversy is resolved by the Division Bench of this Court in its
judgment delivered in Writ Petition No.2280 of 1997 and other
connected matters on 28.07.2016.
wp2161.15.J.odt 3/4
4] Para 25 of the said decision is reproduced below:
25. In view of this discussion we find that contention
of petitioners that the seniority list of primary teachers
in Zilla Parishad must be drawn on the basis of date of
obtaining the B.Ed. Qualification is, erroneous and
misconceived. The seniority list needs to be prepared on
the basis of date of joining the service only. Those with
B.Ed. therein shall be eligible for consideration when
the post of Center Incharge or Kendra Pramukh is
sought to be filled in.
5] In view of the aforesaid decision of this Court, the
acquisition of B.Ed. qualification for the purpose of counting
seniority as a Primary School Teacher is of no significance.
The seniority has to be counted from the date of entry in service.
The decision of the Division Bench of this Court has been
implemented by the State Government by issuing Government
Resolution dated 24.01.2017. The authorities below have
therefore, committed an error in holding that the respondent No.7
to be senior to the petitioner on the basis of her B.Ed.
qualification. Obviously the entry of the petitioner in service being
earlier, he has to be treated as senior to the respondent No.7.
6] In the result, writ petition is allowed. The order dated
30.08.2014 passed by the respondent No.5 is hereby quashed and
wp2161.15.J.odt 4/4
set aside. The petitioner is held senior to the respondent No.7 in
the cadre of Primary School Teacher.
7] The question of considering the other reliefs claimed
by the petitioner in this petition does not at all arise at this stage
and in respect of consequential benefits, all questions are left open
to be agitated, if those are denied.
8] Rule is made absolute in these terms. No order as to
costs.
JUDGE
NSN
