Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Anil Sudam Patil, filed a writ petition challenging the seniority list dated 28.12.2015 issued by the Education Officer (Respondent No.3), which placed the 5th respondent, Ranveer Vilayatchandsing Patil, as senior to him. Both were Assistant Teachers in the same school. The 5th respondent was appointed on 16.07.1985 with an M.Sc. degree, and later acquired a Diploma in Higher Education (DHE) in June 1987, which the State Government had declared equivalent to B.Ed. for the period 1983-1988. The petitioner was appointed on 01.09.1987 with B.Sc. and B.Ed. qualifications. The petitioner argued that since the 5th respondent did not possess B.Ed. or its equivalent at the time of appointment, he should be considered as not having the required qualification, and thus the petitioner should be senior. The court noted that both were placed in Category C under Schedule F of the MEPS Rules, 1981. The court held that seniority is determined by the date of appointment, not by the date of acquiring qualification. The 5th respondent was appointed earlier, and the equivalence of DHE to B.Ed. was recognized for the period in question. Therefore, the petitioner's claim was devoid of merit. The petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Seniority - Determination - Date of Appointment - Seniority is determined by the date of appointment and not by the date of acquiring higher qualification or equivalence thereof - The petitioner appointed on 01.09.1987 cannot claim seniority over the respondent appointed on 16.07.1985, even though the respondent acquired DHE (equivalent to B.Ed.) later in June 1987 - Held that the petitioner's claim is devoid of merit (Paras 4-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, appointed later, can claim seniority over the respondent who was appointed earlier but acquired a qualification equivalent to B.Ed. after appointment.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Seniority determined by date of appointment
- not qualification
- Equivalence of DHE to B.Ed. for limited period
- MEPS Rules
- 1981 Schedule F Category C
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (07) 1
WRIT PETITION NO. 354 OF 2016
Shri Deshmukh Sachin S. (Petitioner), Shri U.H.Bhogle (AGP for Respondents 1 to 3), Shri M.D.Gitte (Respondent 4), Shri Prakashsing B. Patil (Respondent 5)
The State of Maharashtra, The Deputy Director of Education, The Education Officer (Secondary), Navapur Taluka Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Shri Ranveer Vilayatchandsing Patil
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging seniority list
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to be declared senior to Respondent No.5 in the seniority list
Filing Reason
Petitioner aggrieved by order dated 28.12.2015 placing Respondent No.5 as senior to him
Previous Decisions
Order dated 28.12.2015 by Education Officer (Respondent No.3) showing Respondent No.5 as senior
Issues
Whether the petitioner, appointed on 01.09.1987, can claim seniority over the respondent appointed on 16.07.1985 based on the respondent's later acquisition of DHE (equivalent to B.Ed.)?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that since Respondent No.5 did not possess B.Ed. or equivalent at the time of appointment, he should be considered as not having the required qualification, and thus petitioner should be senior.
Respondent No.5 argued that he was appointed earlier and seniority is determined by date of appointment.
Ratio Decidendi
Seniority is determined by the date of appointment, not by the date of acquiring higher qualification or equivalence thereof. The petitioner, appointed later, cannot claim seniority over the respondent who was appointed earlier.
Judgment Excerpts
The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by Respondent No.3/ Education Officer dated 28.12.2015 by which the 5th Respondent has been shown to be senior to the Petitioner and as such, the latter has been placed at Sr.No.2 in the seniority list.
Seniority is determined by the date of appointment and not by the date of acquiring qualification.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 354 of 2016 before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, challenging the seniority list dated 28.12.2015. The court heard the matter on 27.07.2016 and dismissed the petition.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981: Schedule F
