Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Vasant Babanrao Palkandwar, was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 01.09.1982 with qualifications S.S.C. and D.Ed. (2 years course). He later obtained B.A. on 14.01.1985 and B.Ed. in 1987. Respondent No. 3, Nitin Tukaram Kharche, joined the same school on 10.10.1985 with qualifications B.Sc., M.Sc., and B.Ed. The petitioner was promoted as Assistant Head Master on 17.03.2008, but was reverted to Assistant Teacher by order dated 08.05.2008. He challenged the reversion in Appeal No. 29 of 2008 before the School Tribunal, while respondent No. 3 filed Appeal No. 46 of 2008 challenging the petitioner's promotion. The School Tribunal, by judgment dated 27.08.2008, dismissed the petitioner's appeal and allowed respondent No. 3's appeal, holding that respondent No. 3 was senior to the petitioner because he possessed B.Ed. qualification at the time of his recruitment on 10.10.1985, whereas the petitioner obtained B.Ed. only in 1987. The petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the Tribunal's judgment. The High Court considered the submissions of the petitioner's counsel, Shri Adbe, and the respondents' counsel. The Court found that the School Tribunal had correctly applied the relevant rules, particularly Schedule-F of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, which requires a teacher to have put in 10 years of service after D.Ed. to enter the zone of consideration for promotion. The Court noted that the petitioner, having been appointed with only D.Ed., would need 10 years from 01.09.1982 to become eligible, whereas respondent No. 3, being a graduate with B.Ed. at the time of appointment, was already in a higher category. The High Court concluded that there was no perversity or illegality in the Tribunal's decision and dismissed the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Seniority - Determination of Seniority - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, Schedule-F - The dispute pertained to seniority between two teachers for promotion to Assistant Head Master. The petitioner was appointed earlier but lacked B.Ed. qualification at the time of recruitment, while respondent No. 3 possessed B.Ed. at the time of his later appointment. The School Tribunal held that respondent No. 3 was senior because he possessed the requisite qualification (B.Ed.) at the time of recruitment. The High Court upheld this view, finding no perversity or illegality in the Tribunal's decision. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the School Tribunal correctly determined seniority inter se between the petitioner and respondent No. 3 based on their qualifications at the time of recruitment.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Seniority
- Promotion
- Qualification
- School Tribunal
- Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules
- 1981
