Allowed

Narayan Korga Pujari v. Gandhi Education Society Kundal and Ors.

Bombay HC29 Aug 2006WP/3322/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an impugned seniority order in a private school where three teachers entered Category 'C' on the same day. Ruling that age alone determines seniority in such cases, the court directed the authorities to refix seniority and grant consequential benefits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned seniority order quashed and set aside. Respondents directed to refix seniority within three months and grant monetary benefits within six months.

Narayan Korga Pujari Vs Gandhi Education… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

 - 1 -

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION
 WRIT PETITION NO.3322 OF 2000

¶3

 Narayan Korga Pujari, )
 adult, Occupation Service, )
 residing at Post Shirdhon/Borgaon, )
 Taluka Kavate mahankal, )
 District Sangli. ).. Petitioner
 Vs.
 1. Gandhi Education Society, )
 Kundal, through its Secretary, )
 having its Registered Office )
 at Kundal, Taluka Tasgaon, )
 District - Sangli. )
 2. Education Officer (Secondary), )
 Zilla Parishad, Sangli, )
 District Sangli. )

¶4

 3. N.J. Jaunjal, )
 adult, Occupation - Service, )
 as a Headmaster of Pratinidhi )
 High School, Kundal, )
 Taluka Tasgaon, District Sangli.)
 4. S.B.Chavan, )
 adult, Occupation : Service )
 as Assistant Headmaster in )
 Pratinidhi High School, Kundal,)
 Taluka Tasgaon, )
 District Sangli. )
 5. State of Maharashtra. ).. Respondents
 --
 Shri S.G.Kudle for the Petitioner.

¶5

 Shri P.G.Lad for the respondent No.1.
 Shri C.R.Sonawane, AGP for the respondent Nos.2 and 5.
 --

¶6

 CORAM : R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR &

¶7

 NARESH H.PATIL, JJ

¶8

 - 2 -

¶9

 DATED : 29TH AUGUST, 2006

¶10

ORAL JUDGMENT: ( Per R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR, J )

¶11

 1. Heard the learned advocates for the petitioner
 and the respondent No.1 as well as the learned AGP for
 the respondent Nos.2 and 5. None present for the
 respondent Nos.3 and 4, though served.

¶12

 2. By the present petition, the petitioner

¶13

 challenges the seniority of the petitioner fixed by
 the respondent No.1 and approved by the respondent
 No.2 whereby the petitioner has been shown junior to
 the respondent Nos.3 and 4. According to the
 petitioner, the petitioner has to be enlisted as
 senior to the respondent Nos.3 and 4, more
 particularly, in view of the provisions comprised
 under Note-3 to clause (2) of Schedule F of the

¶14

 Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Rules, 1981,
 hereinafter called as "the said Rules".

¶15

 3. It is the case of the petitioner that though
 initially the petitioner was employed as untrained
 teacher in the institution of the respondent No.1,
 after appointment of the respondent Nos.3 and 4, yet
 the petitioner and the said two respondents obtained
 the training qualification in education, i.e. B.Ed,

¶16

 - 3 -

¶17

 on the same day i.e.10th June, 1975. All the three
 teachers having entered the category "C" under the
 Schedule F of the said Rules, in terms of the Note-3
 thereof, their seniority has to be decided on the
 basis of their age. The petitioner, being eldest
 amongst the three, ought to have been shown as senior
 most followed by the respondent No.4 and thereafter by
 the respondent No.3. However, the respondent No.1 has
 shown the respondent No.3 to be the senior most
 followed by the respondent No.4 and thereafter the
 petitioner being junior most and the said seniority
 has been approved by the respondent No.2. The said
 seniority was fixed and circulated in the year 1997.
 Immediately thereafter, the petitioner objected to the
 same. However, the request of the petitioner was not
 accepted by the respondents, and hence the present
 petition.

¶18

 4. The respondents in their affidavit have stated
 that the petitioner was born on 1st December, 1943,
 the Respondent No.4 was born on 11th April, 1947 and
 the Respondent No.3 was born on 1st June, 1948. All
 the three, i.e. the petitioner and the said two
 respondents, acquired B.Ed qualifications on 10th
 June, 1975. The date of joining as untrained teacher
 in the institution of the respondent No.1 has been

¶19

 - 4 -

¶20

 shown in the affidavit-in-reply as regards the
 petitioner as 1st July, 1970, as regards the
 respondent No.4 as 26th June, 1970 and as that of the
 respondent No.3 as 8th June, 1970. These facts are
 not in dispute.

¶21

 5. The contention of the respondents is, however,
 that bearing in mind the decision of this Court in

¶22

Saramma Varghese v. Secretary/President,

¶23

S.I.C.E.S.Society, reported in 1989 Mh.L.J. 951, the
 seniority of the three teachers have been fixed, and
 therefore, no fault can be found with the said
 decision.

¶24

 6. The clause (2) of the Schedule F of the said

¶25

 Rules provides for the guidelines for fixation of
 seniority of teachers. It provides that for the
 purpose of fixation of seniority of teachers in the
 secondary schools, Junior Colleges of Education and
 Junior College classes attached to Secondary Schools
 the teachers should be categorised as Categories A, B,
 C and D. As far as the Category ‘C’ is concerned, it
 refers to holders of educational qualifications. The
 Note 3 thereunder reads thus:-

¶26

 "In the case of teachers whose date of

¶27

 - 5 -

¶28

 continuous appointment in one and the same
 category is common, the teacher who is senior
 by age will be treated as senior."

¶29

 7. While dealing with the issue, with reference
 to the age factor, on acquiring the qualification of
 graduation being a trained teacher, the Division Bench
 of this Court in Saramma Varghese’s case (supra),
 after taking into consideration all the rules and
 regulations applicable for such purposes, had observed
 that "a higher academic qualification too is not
 relevant for fixation of seniority of trained
 teachers". It was further ruled that "the only
 criterion for fixation of seniority of trained
 graduate teachers is the continuous officiation in
 such post of teacher, depending upon, their position
 on the ladder." It was also held that "once a person
 is a graduate teacher with B.Ed. degree she rank in
 seniority according to the date of continuous
 officiation."

¶30

 8. Plain reading of the Note 3 quoted above and

¶31

 the decision of the Division Bench in Saramma

¶32

Varghese’s case (supra), therefore, leaves no room for
 doubt that in case of the trained teachers when their
 entry in the said category is on the same day, their

¶33

 - 6 -

¶34

 seniority is to be decided based on the age of such
 teachers having common entry date in such category.
 Obviously, therefore, irrespective of the other
 qualifications and irrespective of the date of
 appointment as the untrained teachers, moment more
 than one teacher becomes a trained graduate teacher on
 the same date, the inter se seniority will have to be
 decided with reference to the age of respective
 teachers. The eldest to be shown as senior most.
 Applying this rule to the facts of the case, once it
 is not in dispute that the petitioner was eldest
 having born on 1st December, 1943 in comparison to the
 date of birth of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 who have
 been shown as senior most amongst the said three
 teachers. Similarly, the respondent No.4 who was born

¶35

 on 11th April, 1947, prior to the birth of the
 respondent No.3, ought to have been shown as 2nd in
 the seniority and the respondent No.3 having born on
 1st June, 1948 to be the third one. The respondents
 having totally ignored this aspect of the matter and
 having enlisted the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 to be the
 senior to the petitioner, the said order of seniority
 cannot be accepted and sustained and is, therefore,
 liable to be quashed and set aside. The respondent
 No.1 be directed to refix the seniority of the
 petitioner along with the respondent Nos.3 and 4,

¶36

 - 7 -

¶37

 bearing in mind the observations made hereinabove, and
 the respondent No.2 be directed to take appropriate
 decision in that regard, albeit, without ignoring the
 observations made hereinabove.

¶38

 9. Needless to say that on account of refixation
 of the seniority, the petitioner would be entitled for
 all the benefits arising out of his seniority over the
 respondent Nos.3 and 4.

¶39

 10. In the result, therefore, the petition
 succeeds. The impugned order of seniority as far as
 it relates to the petitioner and the respondent Nos.3
 and 4 is concerned, is hereby quashed and set aside,
 and the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are hereby directed to
 refix the seniority of the petitioner and the
 respondent Nos.3 and 4 within a period of three months
 from today and further to grant all monetary benefits
 which the petitioner and the respondent Nos.3 and 4
 may be entitled to, on the basis of such refixation of
 seniority within a period of six months from the date
 of refixation of the seniority.

¶40

 11. The rule is made absolute accordingly with no
 order as to costs.

¶41

 - 8 -

¶42

 (R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR, J)

¶43

 (NARESH H.PATIL, J)

Narayan Korga Pujari v. Gandhi Education Society Kundal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narayan Korga Pujari v. Gandhi Education Society Kundal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Anand Bhosale Vs Tanaji Shamrao Lagare and Ors.

The Nashik Municipal Corporation Vs Dr.Yashwant Wamanrao Patil and Ors.

Dr.M.S.Ghawte Vs the Municipal Commissioner and Anr.

Arun G.Lalit Vs State Govt.of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dattatraya Namdev Raut and Ors. Vs Head Master (Late Chandrakant Vasantrao Patil (Madhyamik) Vidyalaya and Ors.

Mangal Anil Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.