Bombay High Court Examines Legality of Tribunal Order Dismissing Original Applications of Assistant Teachers for LDCE Participation. Dispute Centres on Interpretation of Recruitment Rules, 2016 and Whether Earlier Tribunal Decision Declaring Eligibility Applies to Similarly Placed Persons.

Service matter – challenge to Tribunal order dismissing original applications seeking declaration of eligibility for promotion process.

Petitioners sought quashing of the Tribunal’s judgment dated 21 June 2023 and a declaration that they are eligible to participate in the further selection process of LDCE 2017 for the post of Deputy Education Officer.

Petitioners were excluded from the interview list for LDCE 2017 despite securing cut-off marks, and the Tribunal dismissed their original applications relying on a co-ordinate bench decision which held that earlier eligibility order was in personam and claims were barred by delay.

Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, by common judgment and order dated 21 June 2023 dismissed Original Application Nos.327 of 2022 and 344 of 2022; earlier, the Nagpur Bench of the Tribunal in O.A. No.391 of 2022 had dismissed a similar claim; the Tribunal in O.A. No.634 of 2017 (decided on 4 October 2018) had initially declared Primary Teachers eligible but later restricted the order to applicants.

Whether Assistant Teachers in Zilla Parishad Primary Schools are eligible to participate in LDCE 2017 under the Recruitment Rules, 2016. Whether the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal correctly dismissed the original applications by applying the principle of in personam and by holding that the claims were barred by delay. Whether the earlier order of the Tribunal in O.A. No.634 of 2017 operates as a precedent for similarly situated candidates.

Petitioners contended they are similarly situated to the successful applicants in O.A. No.634 of 2017 and that the Tribunal erred in not extending the same benefit; they meet the eligibility criteria under the Recruitment Rules. Petitioners argued that the Tribunal actually wanted to allow their applications but felt bound by the Nagpur Bench order, and that the interim order of the High Court in the Nagpur case had diluted that order’s binding effect. Respondent-State argued that petitioners do not fulfil the eligibility criteria specified, that the earlier order was restricted to applicants, and the present original applications are barred by delay and laches. Alternatively, the State submitted that petitioners originally applied under the MES stream and cannot now claim eligibility under the DTS stream.

Ratio not explicitly mentioned

The short issue that arose for consideration of the Tribunal and which again arises for our consideration is whether Petitioners are eligible to participate in the LDCE 2017 convened vide circular dated May 17, 2017. In pursuance of the Recruitment Rules, a circular was issued by the State Government on May 17, 2017 proposing to fill-up 123 posts of Deputy Education Officer, which were bifurcated into 31 posts allotted for MES stream and 92 pots allotted for DTS stream. The benefit of the judgment and order dated October 4, 2018 was restricted to the Applicants therein. The Principal Bench of the Tribunal felt bound that the decision of its co-ordinate Bench in Original Application No.391 of 2022 and therefore proceeded to dismiss Petitioners’ Original Applications.

On 5 July 2016, the Government of Maharashtra notified the Recruitment Rules for Deputy Education Officer. A circular dated 17 May 2017 proposed LDCE 2017. On 19 May 2017, the Directorate of Education clarified that Assistant Teachers in Zilla Parishad Primary Schools are not eligible. Petitioners applied and participated in the written examination. On 4 October 2018, the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.634 of 2017 declared Primary Teachers eligible but later restricted the order to applicants; the State’s review was dismissed on 1 February 2019. On 25 July 2022, the Nagpur Bench of the Tribunal dismissed a similar claim in O.A. No.391 of 2022. Petitioners’ names were missing from the interview list published on 1 April 2023. They filed O.A. Nos.327 of 2022 and 344 of 2022, which were dismissed on 21 June 2023 by the Principal Bench, following the Nagpur Bench decision. Meanwhile, the Nagpur Bench of the High Court in W.P. No.5059 of 2022 permitted those petitioners to participate in interviews on 23 June 2023. Petitioners challenged the Tribunal’s dismissal before the High Court.

• Deputy Education Officer in the Maharashtra Education Service, Group-B (Administrative Branch) (Gazetted) (Recruitment) Rules, 2016: Rule 3, Schedule B, Part I, Part II