Haridas Vikramji Meshram vs State Of Mah. Thr. Its Secty., And 5 ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 9175 Bom

LPA.317.10
                                                1


                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                              BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
                                         ...

                         LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 317/2010
                                        IN
                                    WRIT PETITION NO. 3191/2009

        Haridas Vikramji Meshram
        Aged 54 years, occu: Assistant Teacher
        Shri Vivekanand Vidya Mandir,
        Pimpalkhuta (Big)
        Tq. Morshi, Dist. Amravati.                                 ..       APPELLANT

                versus

1)      State of Maharashtra
        Through its Secretary
        Ministry of Education
        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

2)      Shri Vivekanad Sewa Sangh
        Lehegaon, Tq, Morshi, Dist.Amravati.
        Through its President
        Shri B.S.Patil
        R/o Lehegaon, Tq.Morshi, Dist. Amravati.

3)      A.U. Navghare
        Head master
        Shri Vivekanad Vidya Mandir
        Pimpalkhuta (Big) Tq.Morshi
        Dist. Amravati.

4)      S.N. Chaudhary,
        Head master
        Shri Vivekand Vidya Mandir
        Shirkhed, Tq.Morshi, Dist.Amravati.

5)      The Education Officer (Secondary)
        Zilla Parishad, Amravati.

6)      The Presiding Officer
        School Tribunal, Amravati.                                   ..      RESPONDENTS




     ::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017                                 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 00:51:54 :::
 LPA.317.10
                                                                       2


................................................................................................................................................
                         Mr. G.M.Bagde, Advocate for the appellant
                         Mr. H.R.Dhumale, AGP for respondents 1, 5 & 6
                         Rest of respondents served.
................................................................................................................................................

                                                                           CORAM: B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
                                                                                  MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.

DATED: 29th November, 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

1. Heard Adv.Bagde for appellant/original petitioner and learned AGP

Dhumale for respondents 1,5 and 6. Nobody appears for other respondents.

2. Submission of Adv.Bagde is, learned single Judge has passed the order

in a rather pedantic and mechanical manner without looking to the arguments

advanced or legal position pointed out. He does not dispute the basic facts. According

to him, there are total four Schools run by same Management and, therefore, four

posts of Headmasters. Merely because one of these four Schools is an exclusive

school for Girls, post of Headmaster therein cannot be excluded for the purposes of

computing reservation of 24%. He contends that while applying Full Bench judgment

of this Court in the case of New English High School Association vs. Baldev,

reported at 2006 (6) Mh.L.J. 882 though requirement of reservation at 24% has been

noticed, fact that there were four posts of Headmasters with Management, has been

ignored. Treating post of Headmaster in Girls' school as a distinct class, by itself, only

three posts have been accepted and this has resulted in failure to apply stipulated

LPA.317.10

reservation at 24%. He contends that the issue though specifically raised, has not

been addressed to by learned single Judge.

3. In order to point out the obligations of Court even while writing

judgment of concurrence, he has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, in

the case of U.Manjunath Rao vs. U. Chandrashekhar and another, reported in

(2017) SCCR 837.

4. Learned AGP, on the other hand, has invited attention to consideration

in para 24 of the Full Bench judgment. He submits that there Full Bench has looked

into earlier Full Bench judgment in the case of Asha Chakradhar Raut vs. Deputy

Director of Education (Sec), Nagpur and others, reported at 2003 (3) Mh.L.J.

1010. He submits that as per said Full Bench judgment of 2003, post of Headmistress

in Girls' School becomes an isolated post and therefore is cut away from the normal

school. He, therefore, submits that learned single Judge as also the School Tribunal

have rightly applied their mind to the controversy. The provisions of Rule 9(7) of the

Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules,1981

(henceforth abbreviated to "Rules of 1981") then envisaged reservation at 24% and

accordingly four posts in a cadre were essential. As management has only three

schools, 24% roster has not been applied. He therefore prays for dismissal of LPA.

5. With assistance of learned counsel for respective parttes we have

LPA.317.10

perused the records. Facts show that Management, no doubt, runs four schools or

then may also have maintained common seniority list and transferred teachers from

Girls' school to mixed school or vice-versa but then mandate of Rule 3 (4) of Rules

of 1981 is very clear. Rule 3 deals with qualification and appointment of Head.

Sub-rule (4) specifically stipulates that where the School concerned is a girls'

secondary school or Junior College of Education for women, the senior-most lady

teacher fulfilling the conditions laid down in clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 only,

shall be appointed as its Head. It also clarifies that it is irrespective of her seniority

vis-a-vis male teachers.

6. Sub-rule (4) therefore obliges management to promote senior-most

eligible lady teacher as Headmistress in its Girls' school. The language employed in

said sub-rule also demonstrates that presence of a senior male teacher in a Girls'

school is irrelevant for said purpose. Not only this, it also implies that roster itself

does not apply to such Girls' school. Thus, present management having only one girls'

school is obliged to promote senior-most lady teacher fulfilling necessary qualifications

on satisfying the conditions for being a Headmistress. The post of

Headmistress,therefore, is obviously treated as distinct by scheme of Rules of 1981

and in present facts, it gets segregated from the cadre of Headmaster. Said cadre

here has strength of three posts only.

7. According to Adv.Bagde, in present facts, there are four posts in cadre

LPA.317.10

of Headmaster. We are not in position to accept said contention. The provisions of

Rule 3 (4) read with Full Bench judgment in the case of Asha Chakradhar Raut

vs.Deputy Director of Education (supra), clearly shows that post of Headmistress in

a Girls' School cannot be treated as part of such cadre and it is required to be

recognized as an isolated and distinct post. When roster itself is not attracted while

promoting senior-most lady teacher as Headmistress, such post of Headmistress

cannot be added to general/mixed cadre of Headmasters in an attempt to reach total

strength requisite for applying 24% roster.

8. The School Tribunal as also learned single Judge have arrived at same

conclusion and we endorse it.

9. We find that arguments advanced by Adv.Bagde have not been

elaborated by learned single Judge while disposing of Writ Petition. However, the same

have been duly evaluated and findings upon it, have been recorded. Thus, there is no

omission to record proper reasons on part of learned single Judge.

10. In this background, no case is made out warranting intervention in the

Appeal. Letters Patent Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

                           JUDGE                             JUDGE

sahare