Bombay High Court
Sangita Vikas Sontakke vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 4 October, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:27946
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 4849 OF 2022
SANJAY S/O MADHUKAR KULKARNI
VERSUS
SAMARTH VIDYA PRASARAK MANDAL & OTHERS
Mr. P. M. Nagargoje, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mrs. M. L. Sangeet, AGP for the State.
Mr. L. V. Sangeet, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
Mrs. C. S. Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent No. 5.
Mr. A. N. Kakade, Advocate for Respondent No. 6.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 677 OF 2022
SANGITA W/O VIKAS SANTAKKE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS
Mr. A. N. Kakade, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mrs. M. L. Sangeet, AGP for the State.
Mrs. C. S. Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 5 and 6.
Mr. L. V. Sangeet, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.
Mr. P. M. Nagargoje, Advocate for Respondent No. 7.
CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
DATE : 4th OCTOBER, 2025
P.C. :-
1. These Petitions take exception to the order dated
16/03/2021 passed by the School Tribunal, Solapur in Appeal Nos.
23/2018 and 80/2018, dismissing the Appeals filed by the Petitioners.
2. Since both these Petitions involve similar questions of facts
and law, by consent of both sides, heard together and decided by this
922 WP 4849.2022.odt 1 of 14
common judgment.
3. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to by their
name in order to avoid confusion.
4. Facts which led to filing of these Petitions can be narrated in
brief as under :-
(i) In Writ Petition No. 4849/2022 Petitioner Sanjay Kulkarni
(for short ' Mr. Kulkarni'), claims that he was appointed in Respondent
No. 1-school on 29/08/1988 and was given letter of appointment of the
same date. He claims that during service he completed B.Ed. on
05/05/1993. This came to be intimated to the Headmaster seeking
B.Ed. scale. Accordingly, by letter dated 25/05/1993, the Secretary of
Respondent-trust granted B.Ed. scale to him with effect from
01/06/1993.
(ii) In Writ Petition No. 677/2022, Petitioner Sangita Sontakke
(for short 'Smt. Sontakke') claims to have been appointed as Assistant
Teacher (Secondary) on probation in the year 1993 on the basis of
qualification of BA B.Ed. It is the case of these Petitioners that
contesting Respondent Sangita Joshi (for short 'Smt. Joshi') was
possessing B.Com B.Ed. qualification and came to be appointed as
Assistant Teacher from 1993.
922 WP 4849.2022.odt 2 of 14
(iii) It is the case of Petitioners that Respondent No. 1-Trust is
running two schools in the vicinity of Ahmednagar at Sangle Galli and
Savedi. Respondent-management prepared combined seniority list of
above two schools and the same was circulated from time to time
amongst the teachers inviting objections, if any. It is the case of Mr.
Kulkarni that contesting Respondent and Smt. Sontakke have never
raised objection to the said seniority list for almost 15 years showing
their names below his name in the seniority list. It is claimed by
Mr. Kulkarni that Smt. Joshi and Smt. Sontakke were appointed on the
sanctioned post 14/06/1993 and 21/07/1993 and the Education Officer
while granting approval to them has considered their date of
appointment as 14/06/1993. It is claimed by him that they never
challenged the said order of appointment.
(iv) Smt. Joshi took exception to the seniority list prepared by
the Respondent-management. Education Officer by order dated
06/08/2013 has confirmed the seniority list. It is held that Smt. Joshi is
senior to them. Mr. Kulkarni challenged same before the Education
Officer itself. The same was unsuccessful on the ground that he has no
power to review his own order. The Management by order dated
06/09/2013 promoted Smt. Joshi as Supervisor and Head Mistress on
30/07/2018. The decision taken by the Education Officer under Rule 2
of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Rules, 1981 was
922 WP 4849.2022.odt 3 of 14
challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No. 4736/2014. The
Division Bench of this Court by order dated 28.02.2017 relegated the
parties to School Tribunal for deciding issue of seniority amongst the
teachers. Accordingly, Mr. Kulkarni filed Appeal No. 23/2018 before the
School Tribunal. Similarly, Smt. Sontakke filed Appeal No. 80/2018
under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Act, 1977. During
the pendency of appeal Mr. Kulkarni was promoted as Head Master
w.e.f. 28/09/2020 and Smt. Sontakke as Supervisor on 28/09/2020 and
they accepted the said posts.
(v) It is the case of Mr. Kulkarni that during the pendency of
Appeal, Smt. Joshi filed documents on 17.06.1986 claiming her
appointment to be on 02/07/1992. He claims that said documents are
forged and fabricated and the same were denied by him before the
School Tribunal. Both Mr. Kulkarni and Smt. Sontakke have grievance in
respect of the impugned orders dated 16/03/2021 passed in Appeal No.
23/2018 and order dated 19/07/2021 passed in Appeal No.80/2018 by
School Tribunal rejecting their Appeals. Hence, these Petitions.
5. At the outset, learned counsel for Petitioner submits that it
was not open for Smt. Joshi to take exception to the seniority list after
lapse of substantial period of 15 years. It is his submission that as per
the settled position of law, the Courts are expected not to entertain the
Petitions challenging seniority after inordinate delay. In order to
922 WP 4849.2022.odt 4 of 14
buttress the said submission, he drew attention of the Court to the fact
that since 1997 seniority list came to be published and till 2013 the
name of Mr. Kulkarni was shown above Smt. Joshi and Smt. Sontakke
which they never objected to. It is his submission that neither the
management nor the Education Officer ought to have considered the
objections raised by Smt. Joshi to the said seniority list and should not
have accepted the same. This, according to him, is contrary to the
position of law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of K. R.
Mudgal and others vs. R. P. Singh and others, (1986) 4 Supreme Court
Cases 531. He also placed reliance on following judgments :-
(i) Shiba Shankar Mohapatra and others vs. State of Orissa and
others, (2010) 12 Supreme Court Cases 471
(ii) B. S. Bajwa and another vs. State of Punjab and others
(1998) 2 Supreme Court Cases 523
(iii) Saramma Varghese vs. Secretary /President S.I.CE.S.
Society 1989 Mh.L.J. 951
(iv) Pragati Mahila Samaj and another vs. Arun s/o Laxman
Zurmure & others, (2016) 9 Supreme Court Cases 255
(v) Hindustan Education Society and another vs. Sk. Kaleem
Sk. Gulam Nabi and others
(1997) 5 Supreme Court Cases 152
(vi) Chandramani Devraj Tiwari vs. Secretary Smt. R. B. Tiwari
2008(3) Mh.L.J. 274
6. On merit of Petition challenging the impugned order passed
by the School Tribunal, he drew attention of the Court to the claim
made by Smt. Joshi that she was appointed on 14/06/1993. It is his
922 WP 4849.2022.odt 5 of 14
submission that for the first time before the School Tribunal it is sought
to be claimed that her appointment was of 02/07/1992. It is his
submission that the said claim has been made by Smt. Joshi on the
basis of false and fabricated documents and the same ought not to have
been accepted by the Tribunal. It is argued that the approval granted to
the appointment of Smt. Joshi indicates that she was appointed on
14.06.1993 and therefore, neither it was open for Smt. Joshi to claim
her appointed to be of 1992 nor it was justified for the Tribunal to
accepted the said claim. In this regard, reference is sought to be made
to the documents placed on record. It is his submission that firstly the
seniority list ought not to have been allowed to be taken exception to
after 15 years and secondly the Tribunal should not have accepted the
case of Joshi to hold her appointment to be of the year 1992 by ignoring
the other documentary evidence on record. Thus, it is his contention
that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are perverse and hence
deserve interference.
7. Learned counsel for Smt. Sontakke also sought to take
exception to the order impugned on similar grounds. However, he
cannot dispute the fact that Smt. Sontakke was appointed on
14/06/1993 and that there is no dispute with regard to the said date of
appointment.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Smt. Joshi
922 WP 4849.2022.odt 6 of 14
supported the impugned order. It is her submission that the list of
seniority by itself does not create any right in teacher to get promotion
and that faulty list of seniority can be subjected to challenge at
appropriate time. It is her further submission that the cause of action
arose for Smt. Joshi to take exception to the said seniority list only
when the question arose with regard to the promotion of the teacher to
the post of Supervisor in year 2013. It is submitted that the date of
appointment and acquisition of necessary qualification would be decisive
and not only the date of their entry into the service. It is pointed out
from the documents on record that Smt. Joshi was appointed on
02/07/1992 and that she had requisite qualification of B.Com and B.Ed.
at the time of the said appointment itself. In this regard, reference is
made to Schedule F of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Act
which indicates that for appointment as Assistant Teacher in secondary
school, the qualification of B.Com is requisite qualification and according
to her, undisputedly, she was B.Ed. at the time of her appointment. To
support said submission, she placed reliance on judgment in case of
Mrs. Gaur Pratibha and others vs. The State of Maharashtra and others,
2020(1) ALL MR 311. Similarly, reliance is placed on judgment in case
of Ku. Bhawana vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2019 SC 238.
9. For the purpose of considering the submissions sought to be
made across the bar, it would be necessary to take note of the facts
922 WP 4849.2022.odt 7 of 14
which are appearing from the documents placed on record before the
Tribunal. Though it is claimed by Mr. Kulkarni that he was appointed in
the year 1988 precisely on 29/08/1998, documentary evidence on
record indicates that he was appointed on 29/08/1988 as untrained
teacher and came to be appointed as Assistant Teacher on 01/07/1993.
However, admittedly, he had acquired qualification of B.Ed. on
05/05/1993. Similarly, Smt. Sontakke was appointed on 14/06/1993
and she acquired B.Ed. qualification after her appointment i.e. on
21/07/1993 whereas the record indicates that the initial date of
appointment of Smt. Joshi was 02/07/1992 and she acquired
qualification of B.Com on 18/06/1987 and B.Ed. on 16/05/1991.
Though it is sought to be argued on behalf of the Petitioners that Smt.
Joshi never raised objection with regard to her date of appointment
being shown as 14/06/1993, so also the same is appearing in the order
of approval issued by the Education Officer. In this regard, it would be
relevant to take note of the findings recorded by the Tribunal on the
basis of documents placed before it. Before the Tribunal, apart from the
appointment order dated 01/07/1992, joining report dated 02/07/1992
was placed on record by Smt. Joshi. This claim of Smt. Joshi is further
supported by daily muster roll/catalog from July 1992 to June 1993.
Thus, this is not the case of production of some documents i.e. the
appointment letter which could be construed as false and fabricated
document. Smt. Joshi thus has substantiated her case by placing cogent
922 WP 4849.2022.odt 8 of 14
material on record to indicate that she had worked in the school since
July 1992 till June 1993, so also her acquisition of qualification before
Mr. Kulkarni.
10. Though it is sought to be argued on behalf of the Petitioner
the claim of Smt. Joshi is based upon false and fabricated documents,
there has to be specific pleadings and proof thereof. The law on the
point is clear to say that the plea of fabrication of document must be
specifically raised and substantiated by cogent evidence. Apart from this
the documents filed on record by Petitioner Mr. Kulkarni, create
possibility that while preparing seniority list, mistake was committed.
The seniority list (Pg.53) indicates date of appointment of Mr. Kulkarni
as 13/06/1990 and he being continued in service till May 1993 as
untrained teacher is not objected to by him. Now, however, it is claimed
that he was appointed on 29/08/1988. Moreover, the communication
dated 16/01/2013 (Pg 54) addressed by Mr. Kulkarni, while claiming
post of Supervisor, indicates that he claimed to have acquired B.Ed.
Before Smt. Joshi and Smt. Sontakke. These facts indicate that there
was error in recording the facts about entry in service as well as date of
acquisition of qualification in the seniority list. Thus, both Mr. Kulkarni
and Smt. Joshi can not be said to have accepted the incorrect recording
in the seniority list and it was open for them to seek correction thereof.
Having regard to these facts, it cannot be said that claim of Smt. Joshi,
922 WP 4849.2022.odt 9 of 14
is an after thought or based upon false and fabricated documents.
11. Herein this case, contrary to proof of such fabrication, there
is cogent material on record to hold that the appointment of Smt. Joshi
is of July 1992 and that there is more than sufficient material more
particularly in the form of the appointment order and the muster roll
signed by her for the period from July 1992 till April 1993. This Court,
therefore, finds that Mr. Kulkarni has failed to make out a case of
fabrication of document as alleged.
12. Now question arises as to whether the claim of Mr. Kulkarni
should be accepted for the purpose of determining seniority as he was
appointed in the year 1988. Admittedly, though he was appointed in
the year 1988, the said appointment was as untrained teacher. His
appointment as Assistant Teacher is of 14.06.1993. The acquisition of
qualification of B.Ed. by Mr. Kulkarni is on 05.05.1993. As against this,
Smt. Joshi has substantiated her appointment and acquisition of
qualification of B.Ed. on 16/05/1991. It would be fruitful to take note of
the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in case of Mrs. Gaur
Pratibha (supra) wherein the it is observed as under :-
"Among Primary Teachers, the seniority is counted
from the date of the teacher's joining service. On the
other hand, among the Secondary Teachers, the seniority
is counted based on when the teachers had been placed
in a particular category-for their seniority stands graded
922 WP 4849.2022.odt 10 of 14
and categorized by the date of their very joining. This
categorization is qualification-dependent. Placed in the
descending order of category, the teachers rise in ranks of
seniority with their additionally acquired qualifications
under Guideline (2) of Schedule F, appended to Rule 12 of
the MEPS Rules. Thus, a teacher who is a member of a
lower category can in no manner rank senior to the
teacher who is already a member of a higher category.
Such a claim could be based neither on his continuous
service nor on his acquiring the qualification and reaching
the higher category. To be specific a teacher, for
example, in Category D, E, or F, on later migration to
Category C, cannot steal a march over a teacher already
ensconced in that higher Category. That teacher's
seniority by length of service and by his or her later
acquiring the requisite, additional, or even superior
qualifications does not defeat the right of teachers
already found placed in Category C. What applies to
Primary Teachers cannot apply to Secondary Teachers, for
the Rules do keep these two streams of teachers
unmixed. Therefore once the secondary teacher enter a
common category from the different sources, their
seniority must be reckoned from the date they enter the
designated category i.e. from the date they acquire the
necessary qualifications but not from the date of their
entry into the service.
. Similarly fruitful reference can be made to the judgment in
case of Ku. Bhawani (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held that what would be relevant is acquisition of B.Ed. qualification and
922 WP 4849.2022.odt 11 of 14
thereby entry in category 'C'. Here in this case, admittedly, Smt. Joshi
has acquired B.Ed. qualification prior to that by others and her seniority
must be reckoned from the date of acquisition of qualification and not
from date of appointment of others before they could acquire requisite
qualification. Thus, rightly Smt. Joshi has been included in category 'C'
much prior to inclusion of Mr. Kulkarni and Smt. Sontakke in the said
category. Thus, there is no doubt that Smt. Joshi was senior to Mr.
Kulkarni and Smt. Sontakke. The findings recorded by Tribunal in this
regard are in consonance with the provisions of law and settled position
of law. This Court therefore finds no substance in the challenge sought
to be made by Petitioners to her seniority and consequently, right to get
promotion before Petitioners.
13. With regard to the argument in respect of the delay in
raising objection to the seniority list is concerned, in case of K. R.
Mudgal and others it is held that any one who feels aggrieved by the
seniority assigned to him should approach the court as early as possible
as otherwise in addition to the creation of a sense of insecurity in the
minds of the Government servants there would also be administrative
complications and difficulties. It is further held that a government
servant who is appointed to any post ordinarily should at least after
period of 3 or 4 years of his appointment be allowed to attend to the
duties attached to his post peacefully and without any sense of
922 WP 4849.2022.odt 12 of 14
insecurity. In the said case, the appellants had been put to the necessity
of defending their appointments as well as seniority after nearly a three
decades. In the facts of the said case, therefore it was held that the
promotions should not be disturbed after a long lapse of time and Court
should not entertain Petition challenging seniority after inordinate delay.
The other judgments as relied upon by the learned Counsel for the
Petitioner make reference to the judgment of Supreme Court in case K.
R. Mudgal and others.
14. There cannot be any dispute with regard to the proposition
of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to say that any person
who is promoted on the basis of a seniority list, should not be disturbed
challenged of the seniority after inordinate delay. As far as present case
is concerned, though seniority list used to be published for the
substantial period, the question arose with regard to the correctness
thereof only in or around 2013 when Smt. Joshi was entitled to be
promoted as a Supervisor. In this backdrop, it cannot be said that there
is any ordinate delay in taking exception to the seniority list. In any
case, exception is taken to the seniority list has not resulted into
dislodging any person who has been promoted on the basis of seniority.
In considered view of this Court, therefore, the act of challenging
seniority list at the time when the promotional post of of Supervisor was
available cannot be faulted with.
922 WP 4849.2022.odt 13 of 14
15. As far as claim of Smt. Sontakke is concerned, admittedly
not only she was appointed after Mr. Kulkarni and Smt. Joshi, but also
has acquired B.Ed. qualification at later point of time than them. Thus,
in any case her Petition sans merits.
16. Perusal of the judgment impugned indicates that the
Tribunal has rightly taken into consideration the pleadings of the parties
and evidence led before it and finding arrived at cannot be termed as
perverse in order cause any interference therein. As a result of above
discussion, both Petitions stand dismissed.
(R. M. JOSHI, J.)
ssp
922 WP 4849.2022.odt 14 of 14
