Bombay High Court Considers Challenge to Seniority List and Promotion in Municipal School Under Secondary School Code. Deputy Director of Education's Order Referring Inter Se Seniority Dispute to Municipal Council Instead of Deciding Merits is Challenged, Along with Maintainability of Writ Petition Against Alternative Remedy Under Rule 61.2.

Writ petition challenging the Deputy Director of Education's order dated 09/02/2022 and the Municipal Council's communication dated 15/02/2022 concerning inter se seniority and promotion of teachers in a municipal school.

The petitioner sought quashing of the Deputy Director's order and the consequential communication, and correction of the seniority list to restore his seniority and promotion rights over respondent no.4.

The Deputy Director failed to adjudicate the inter se seniority dispute on merits and merely referred the matter to the Municipal Council, which led to a seniority list showing the petitioner as junior and respondent no.4 being promoted as Headmaster.

By order dated 27/10/2021 in Writ Petition No. 1237/2020, the High Court set aside the Education Officer's orders dated 17/04/2018 and 20/12/2019, held that MEPS Act and Rules do not apply to municipal schools, and granted liberty to approach the appropriate authority under the Secondary School Code. The Deputy Director's order dated 09/02/2022 is now impugned.

Whether the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and Rules 1981 apply to municipal schools. Whether the Deputy Director of Education was required to decide the inter se seniority dispute on merits under the Secondary School Code instead of referring it to the Municipal Council. Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite availability of an alternative remedy of appeal under Rule 61.2 of the Secondary School Code. Whether respondent no.4 could be placed senior to the petitioner based on his initial appointment date and subsequent qualifications.

Petitioner: He was appointed in Category-B with B.A. and B.Ed, while respondent no.4 was appointed in Category-D with only D.Ed and obtained B.Ed later, so respondent no.4 cannot be senior; the Deputy Director erred by referring the dispute instead of deciding merits; relied on Madhavi v. Chagan, Vasant Babanrao Palkandwar, Sunil Pandhari Nagrare, and other decisions. State/AGP: Respondent no.4 was appointed on 02/12/1992 with S.S.C. and D.Ed, acquired B.A. in 1993 and was placed in Category C; the Education Officer had already decided the seniority; the petitioner should have availed the appeal remedy under Rule 61.2. Municipal Council: It acted as per the Deputy Director's order dated 09/02/2022 and prepared a draft inter se seniority list published on 15/09/2022; the order was self-explanatory and under the School Code. Respondent No.4: The petitioner is seeking to set aside his promotions; an alternative efficacious remedy of appeal is available; services are governed by the Secondary School Code; respondent no.4 was initially appointed on 02/11/1992 with two years D.Ed training and later acquired B.A., hence entitled to Category-B; the petitioner is picking inapplicable clauses of the Secondary School Code.

This Court, by the order dated 27/10/2021, set aside both the impugned orders and observed that the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and Rules 1981 (for short, “MEPS Act and Rules”) do not apply to the Municipal Schools. The Petitioner was granted liberty to file appropriate Representation under the provisions of the Secondary School Code. by the impugned order dated 09/02/2022, the Deputy Director of Education has simply referred the dispute to the Municipal Council. the Petitioner was supposed to avail the alternative remedy of filing an Appeal available in Rule 61.2 of the Secondary School Code.

The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 04/08/1993 and made permanent as Trained Graduate Secondary School Teacher on 05/11/1993. Seniority lists from 1993 to 2018 showed the petitioner senior to respondent no.4, who was appointed as an untrained teacher in 1992 and completed B.Ed later. On 26/07/2017, the petitioner was promoted as Supervisor. A fresh seniority list showed respondent no.4 as senior; the petitioner objected on 13/04/2018, and the objection was rejected on 17/04/2018. On 21/05/2018, the petitioner made a representation to the Education Officer. Respondent no.4 was promoted as Assistant Headmaster on 31/10/2018. The Education Officer rejected the petitioner's objections on 20/12/2019. The petitioner challenged the orders dated 17/04/2018 and 20/12/2019 in Writ Petition No. 1237/2020. By order dated 27/10/2021, the High Court set aside those orders, held that MEPS Act and Rules do not apply to municipal schools, and granted liberty to approach the appropriate authority under the Secondary School Code. The Deputy Director of Education passed the impugned order dated 09/02/2022 referring the dispute to the Municipal Council, and the Municipal Council issued a communication dated 15/02/2022 publishing the seniority list. Respondent no.4 was promoted as Headmaster by orders dated 11/03/2022 and 17/03/2022. The present writ petition was filed challenging the order dated 09/02/2022 and the communication dated 15/02/2022.

• Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977:
• Secondary School Code: Rule 61.2