Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sunil Madhukar Gaikwad, challenged the judgment and order dated 17.3.2006 passed by the School Tribunal, Nagpur in Appeal No.STN/15/2004. The Tribunal had allowed the appeal filed by respondent no.1, Surendra Jangluji Meshram, and directed the respondent-management to promote respondent no.1 to the post of 'Laboratory Attendant', thereby quashing the promotion of the petitioner to the same post. The High Court examined the question whether respondent no.1 could claim a right of promotion to the post of Laboratory Attendant. It was not in dispute that in view of the Full Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Tanaji Madhukar Barbade v. State of Maharashtra and others, 2010(6) Mh.L.J. 901, the post of Laboratory Attendant in question cannot be considered to be a promotional post. Consequently, the appeal before the School Tribunal itself was not maintainable. The Court held that the impugned judgment and order could not be sustained and was quashed and set aside. The appeal filed by the respondents was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Promotion - Laboratory Attendant - Not a Promotional Post - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 - The issue was whether the post of Laboratory Attendant is a promotional post. The Court held that in view of the Full Bench decision in Tanaji Madhukar Barbade v. State of Maharashtra, 2010(6) Mh.L.J. 901, the post of Laboratory Attendant cannot be considered a promotional post, and consequently the appeal before the School Tribunal was not maintainable. (Paras 1-2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent no.1 can claim right of promotion to the post of 'Laboratory Attendant' and whether the appeal before the School Tribunal was maintainable.
Final Decision
The judgment and order dated 17.3.2006 passed by the School Tribunal in Appeal No.STN/15/2004 is quashed and set aside. The appeal filed by the respondents is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Post of Laboratory Attendant is not a promotional post
- Appeal before School Tribunal not maintainable
- Full Bench decision in Tanaji Madhukar Barbade v. State of Maharashtra applies
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (07) 133
Writ Petition No.2091 of 2006
Shri P.P.Thakre for Petitioner, Shri M.P.Lala for Respondent no.1, Shri Tejas Patil h/f Shri Anand Parchure for Respondent nos.2 and 3, Smt.I.L.Bodade, AGP for Respondent nos.4 and 5
Surendra Jangluji Meshram, Somalwar Academic Education Society, Somalwar High School & Junior College, Regional Deputy Director of Vocational Education & Training, Education Officer (Secondary)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the judgment and order of the School Tribunal directing promotion to the post of Laboratory Attendant.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of the School Tribunal's order which directed the management to promote respondent no.1 to the post of Laboratory Attendant and set aside the petitioner's promotion.
Filing Reason
The School Tribunal allowed the appeal of respondent no.1 and directed his promotion, which the petitioner challenged on the ground that the post of Laboratory Attendant is not a promotional post.
Previous Decisions
The School Tribunal passed judgment and order dated 17.3.2006 in Appeal No.STN/15/2004 allowing the appeal of respondent no.1.
Issues
Whether the post of Laboratory Attendant is a promotional post.
Whether the appeal before the School Tribunal was maintainable.
Submissions/Arguments
It was not in dispute that in view of the Full Bench decision in Tanaji Madhukar Barbade v. State of Maharashtra, the post of Laboratory Attendant cannot be considered a promotional post.
Consequently, the appeal before the School Tribunal was not maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi
The post of Laboratory Attendant is not a promotional post in view of the Full Bench decision in Tanaji Madhukar Barbade v. State of Maharashtra, and therefore the appeal before the School Tribunal claiming promotion to that post was not maintainable.
Judgment Excerpts
The question is whether the respondent no.1 can claim right of promotion to the post of 'Laboratory Attendant'.
It is not in dispute that in view of the decision of the Full Bench reported in Tanaji Madhukar Barbade Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2010(6) Mh.L.J. 901, the post of 'Laboratory Attendant' in question, cannot be considered to be promotional post and hence, the appeal before the School Tribunal itself, was not maintainable.
Procedural History
The School Tribunal, Nagpur, passed judgment and order dated 17.3.2006 in Appeal No.STN/15/2004 allowing the appeal of respondent no.1 and directing his promotion. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.2091 of 2006 before the Bombay High Court challenging that order. The High Court heard the matter and delivered judgment on 6.7.2011.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977:
