Bombay High Court
Manish Sachin Bade vs Gram Sudhar Mandal Mohaopad Thr. ... on 6 August, 2024
Author: Sharmila U. Deshmukh
Bench: Sharmila U. Deshmukh
2024:BHC-AS:32135
35-WP-8729-2023.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.8729 OF 2023
Manish Sachin Bade ...Petitioner
Versus
Gram Sudhar Mandal
Mohaopad Thr. President And Ors. ...Respondents
------------
Adv. Mahadev B. Ghule for the Petitioner.
Adv. Vinayak Kumbhar, Aniket Phapale i/b Ashwini Bandiwadekar for
Respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 5
------------
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.
Date : August 6, 2024.
P. C. :
1. Heard.
2. By this Petition, exception is taken to the judgment dated 28 th
March, 2023 passed by the School Tribunal in Appeal No. 11 of 2022.
The appeal came to be filed under Section 9 of the The Maharashtra
Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act,
1977 (MEPS Act) by the Appellant for quashing and setting aside the
appointment order of primary teachers on the ground that they have
been illegally appointed by superseding the Appellant and for
quashing and setting aside the decision of Respondent Nos. 1 and 3
therein in respect of reduction of rank and supersession of the
Appellant and for quashing and setting aside the decision of the Head
Master of Respondent School as regards the seniority of the primary
teachers and for direction to appoint the Petitioner as Assistant
Teacher w.e.f. 15th June, 2011. It appears that subsequently,
additional relief was incorporated challenging the appointment of
Harish 1 of 3
35-WP-8729-2023.doc
Respondent No. 5 and 6.
3. The Tribunal held that it is not the claim of the Petitioner that
she has been dismissed, removed or otherwise terminated. The
Tribunal held that the Appellant's claim for relief is based on the
submission that the Head Master has shown her date of appointment
as 15th June, 2013 instead of 15th June, 2011 by fabricating document
and thereby got two teachers i.e. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 appointed
in the year 2012 which would be senior to her in the seniority list. The
Tribunal considered the provisions of Section 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(b) of the
MEPS Act and considered whether the claim of the Petitioner would
come under the term reduction in rank. The Tribunal rightly held that
the Appellant has tried to dispute her seniority qua the Respondent
Nos. 5 and 6 therein on the ground that she has been appointed
earlier in time. As the issue pertains to the inter-se seniority dispute,
the Tribunal held that the same can be adjudicated by the concerned
Education Officer under Rule 12 of the Maharashtra Employees of
Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981. The Tribunal
rightly considered that the prayer sought by the Appellant does not
come within the purview of Section 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(b) of the MEPS Act
and dismissed the Appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would point out the seniority
list at page 91 and would submit that on 7 th May, 2012, the name of
the Petitioner was shown at serial No. 4 whereas, in the seniority list
of 20th September, 2014, the name of the Petitioner was shown at
serial No. 5.
5. Upon query by this Court as to the jurisdiction of the School
Tribunal to consider the issue of the seniority under Section 9 of the
Harish 2 of 3
35-WP-8729-2023.doc
MEPS Act, learned counsel for the Appellant is unable to offer any
explanation. Perusal of the Appeal filed before the School Tribunal
would indicate that the case of the Petitioner in the Appeal is that the
decision regarding the seniority list taken by the Respondent Nos. 1
and 3 therein amounts to reduction of rank and supersession of the
appointment while making permanent appointment of other teachers
by promotion. It is therefore more than evident that the challenge to
the seniority list has been rightly held by the Tribunal to be within
domain of the Education Officer under Rule 12 of the 1981 Rules. The
provisions of Section 9 of the MEPS Act are very clear and gives right
of Appeal to the Tribunal where an employee is dismissed, removed or
his services are otherwise terminated or who is reduced in rank or
superseded by the management by making an appointment to any
post by promotion. No submissions have been canvassed to
demonstrate that the case of the Petitioner falls within the purview of
sub Section 1(a) or 1(b) of Section 9 of the MEPS Act, 1977.
6. In view of the above, the Tribunal has rightly decided the issue
of maintainability as there is no reduction of any rank or supersession
by the management and all that is submitted is that there is
fabrication in the date of appointment for which the appropriate
remedy lies elsewhere. In light of the above, the Petition is without
merits and stands dismissed.
7. It is open for the Petitioner to adopt appropriate remedies in
the appropriate forum which is to be decided on its own merits in
accordance with law.
[Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]
Harish 3 of 3
