D.Ed A.T.D.A.M Padhvidhar ... vs Vandana Krishna,Chief Education ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 9539 Bom

                                                                        3-cp120-21.doc

vai

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                      CONTEMPT PETITION NO.120 OF 2021
                                     IN
                       WRIT PETITION NO.14242 OF 2018


      D.Ed.A.T.D.A.M. Padvidhar
      Madhyamic Shikshan Sangh Maharashtra & Ors.                 ...Petitioners
                  V/s.
      Smt.Vandana Krishna & Ors.                                 ...Respondents
                                                                 ...Contemnors


      Mr.Alok Kumar with Mr.Piyush A. Singh i/b A. & S. Jurisprudentia for
      the Petitioners.

      Mrs.Pratibha Gavhane, AGP for the State - Respondent No.1.

                                    CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA &
                                            R.I. CHAGLA, JJ.

DATE : 20TH JULY, 2021.

(THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) P.C. :-

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. By this contempt petition the petitioners have alleged that

the respondents have committed contempt of the judgment passed

by the Division Bench of this Court on 9th April, 2019.

3. The petitioners state that though they are the senior most

teachers in their respective schools, the respondents are not

3-cp120-21.doc

considering their seniority nor are they adding the qualifications of

the petitioners in the Government Resolution dated 3 rd May, 2019 for

determination of their seniority as per the said the judgment dated 9 th

April, 2019.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to

paragraph 49 of the said judgment as well as the operative part of

the said judgment. The Division Bench has in paragraph 49 stated

thus :-

"As we understand categories A and B are post-specific;

they have nothing to do with the qualification, barring the basic one.

In other words, they are similar to the teachers in primary schools;

their seniority counts from the date of appointment. On the other

hand, categories C to H are qualification-specific. To put it explicitly,

on their joining the service, based on their entry-level qualification,

the teachers will, by default, belong to one particular category. In that

default category, they will have their seniority reckoned based on the

date of their joining".

5. In paragraph 122 (a) of the operative part of the judgment,

the Division Bench of this Court held that the two Government

Circulars of 24th January, 2017 and 14th November, 2017 stand

unaffected vis-a-vis primary teachers. Further in paragraph 122 (b)

the Division Bench held that the these Government Circulars cannot

3-cp120-21.doc

be sustained vis-a-vis secondary teachers to the extent those

Government Resolutions mandate that the teachers seniority be

reckoned from the date of their appointment and continuous service.

The Division Bench in paragraph122 (c) of the judgment directed the

Government and the authorities concerned, including the school

managements, to recalibrate the relative seniority of the secondary

teachers based on the category they belong to and based on when

they have entered that category.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the said

judgment has not been complied with as the respondents have only

prepared draft rules which have been notified on 8th June, 2020. He

states that under the draft rules, Schedule "F" under which only

category 'C' has been set out. However, the direction of the Division

Bench as to the recaliberation of the relative seniority of secondary

teachers based on the category they belong to and based on which

they have entered that category has not been complied with.

7. We have considered the submissions of the learned

counsel for the petitioners and gone through the affidavit filed by the

respondents dated 5th March, 2021 affirmed by Smt.Vandana

Krishna, Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of

Maharashtra, School Education & Sports Department, Mantralaya,

Mumbai which is in reply to the contempt petition. In paragraph 4 of

3-cp120-21.doc

the said affidavit, it is stated that pursuant to the directions given by

this Court in the judgment dated 9th April, 2019, the State

Government had issued the circular dated 3rd May, 2019 which

superseded the earlier two Government Circulars dated 24th January,

2017 and 14th November, 2017. It is mentioned in the circular dated

3rd May, 2019 that seniority of teachers in primary and secondary

school will be fixed in accordance with Schedule F of Rule 12,

MEPS Rules, 1981. It is further stated that the seniority of a teacher

in the primary school will be considered from the date they enter into

the service, and seniority of a teacher in the secondary school will be

considered from the date they acquire the necessary qualifications

and enter into their respective category of graduates. It has been

further stated in paragraph 5 of the said affidavit that pursuant to the

directions given by this Court in paragraph 122 (a) and (b) of the

judgment dated 9th April, 2019, these directions have been fully

complied with. In addition to the said compliance, the State

Government has issued a draft notification dated 8 th June, 2020 and

has published the same in the Government Gazette on the same

day. The said draft notification dated 8th June, 2020 is regarding

amendment to Schedule F, Rule 12 of MEPS Rules, 1981.

8. It is further stated in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the said

affidavit that the directions given by this Court in paragraph 122 (a)

3-cp120-21.doc

and (b) of the said judgment dated 9th April, 2019 have been fully

complied with. We find from the said affidavit that the draft notification

dated 8th June, 2020 which notifies the amendment to Schedule "F",

Rule 12 of MEPS Rules, 1981 is yet to be finalized and the

suggestions / objections have been invited and pursuant thereto

about 3000 suggestions / objections have been received to the said

draft notification. The respondents have made it clear in the said

affidavit that after scrutinizing the suggestions / objections, the

Commissioner (Education) Pune has been directed to submit a

detailed report to the State Government. It is only after receipt of the

said report, further procedure will be adopted for amendment of

Schedule "F", Rule 12 of MEPS Rules, 1981, which will be completed

expeditiously.

9. There is no rejoinder to the said affidavit dated 5 th March,

2021 controverting the statements made therein. There is much

substance in the statements made in the affidavit dated 5 th March,

2021 and we find that there has been compliance with the judgment

dated 9th April, 2019 including with the directions issued by the

Division Bench of this Court in the said judgment. We find that there

is no merit in the contempt petition of the petitioners as the

petitioners have been unable to identify which part of the said

judgment dated 9th April, 2019 has not been complied with.

3-cp120-21.doc

10. Accordingly the contempt petition is dismissed. There shall

be no order as to costs.

(R.I. CHAGLA, J.)                                 (R.D. DHANUKA, J.)