Madhavi vs Chagan & Ors.

Allowing the appeals and dismissing the contempt petition, the Court

HELD: 1. The judgment in Bhawna v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. is directly applicable to the present case inasmuch as appellant was holding the qualifications of B.A., B.Ed. at the time of her initial appointment on 16.7.1985, though she was appointed against a regular vacancy on 24.11.1988. However, respondent no. 1 was not qualified for appointment as Assistant Teacher as he graduated in Science only in the year 1997 and passed B.Ed. in 1999. He was upgraded to Category ‘C’ only upon acquiring these qualifications. Accordingly, the seniority list circulated on 1.1.2014 mentioned respondent no. 1’s name at Serial No. 10 while appellant was placed at Serial No. 2, though first in Category ‘C’. [Para 20][1227-F-H]

2. Respondent no. 1 was only having senior secondary certificate and a Diploma in Education at the time of his appointment. With such qualifications, he was an under-graduate teacher falling in Category II(2)(i) or (ii) of Schedule ‘B’ of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981. Such teacher is assigned Category ‘E’ as per Schedule ‘F’. Clause II(1) of Schedule ‘B’, is in respect of teachers possessing graduate degrees. When respondent no. 1 qualified B.Sc. in 1997, he climbed the ladder and became part of Category ‘D’ and later on after acquiring B.Ed. degree, he entered Category ‘C’, whereas appellant and other private respondents were already in Category ‘C’ since the date of their appointment being graduates and degree holders in teaching i.e. B.Ed. [Para 21][1227-H; 1228-A-C]

3. Clause 1 of Schedule ‘F’ deals with seniority of teachers in the primary school. The fact that the School in question is not a primary school could not be controverted by learned counsel for respondent no. 1. Therefore, it is Clause 2 of Schedule ‘F’ which would be referred to in order to determine the seniority of teachers in the secondary school. [Para 22][1228-C-D]

4. The Scheme of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of service) Regulation Act, 1977 and Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 makes it clear that primary and secondary schools have been treated differently in the same set of Rules. Rule 2(e) has entrusted the duties of Education Officer or Education Inspector in relation to secondary or higher secondary school, whereas, the Education Officer in respect of a primary school is Education Officer or the Administrative Officer of the Municipal Corporation or a Municipal School Board. Similarly, Rule 3 prescribes different rules for appointment of a head of a primary school and the head of the Secondary School. Part I of Schedule ‘B’ prescribes qualifications for the appointment of teachers in Primary School, whereas Part II prescribes qualification for appointment of teachers in Secondary School and Junior colleges of Education. Respondent no. 1 had joined Secondary School as an untrained undergraduate teacher. He therefore falls in Clause 2 of Part II of Schedule ‘B’. Similarly, Schedule ‘F’ deals with rule of seniority having different categories. Category ‘E’ is the lower-most level of the ladder which can be upgraded with improvements in the qualifications of the teachers. [Para 23][1228-D-G]

5. This Court finds that the High Court failed to appreciate the distinction between Clause 1 and Clause 2 of Schedule ‘F’ of the Rules. Clause 1 was the subject matter of interpretation by this Court in Viman Vaman Awale and Clause 2 was the subject matter of interpretation in Bhawna. Vaijanath also dealt with promotion to the post of Head Master of a School falling in Clause

1 of Schedule ‘F’. Since the School in question is a secondary school, therefore, Clause 2 of Schedule ‘F’ will determine the seniority. Respondent no. 1 was not a trained teacher to be part of Category ‘C’ at the time of his appointment on 01.08.1985 and he was rightly placed in Category ‘E’ on account of his qualification but he upgraded his qualifications, and hence was placed in Category ‘D’ and ‘C’ on acquiring graduation and B.Ed. degrees respectively. [Para 24][1228-G-H; 1229-A-B]

6. Keeping in view the principle laid down in Vaijanath, appellant was qualified for appointment as a temporary teacher as she was a graduate and also possessed B.Ed. degree. Her appointment was thus in accordance with Section 5(5) of the Act, so was the appointment of the other private respondents. However, respondent no. 1 could not be treated to be part of Category ‘C’ from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 01.08.1985 as he was neither a graduate nor a trained teacher when he was appointed. Also, respondent no. 1 was not even a trained teacher on the date of his appointment and thus cannot claim seniority on such ground from the date of his initial appointment. [Para 25][1229-B-D]

Bhawna v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2019) 4 SCC

300 – relied on.

Viman Vaman Awale v. Gangadhar Makhriya Charitable Trust & Ors. (2014) 13 SCC 219 – inapplicable.

Gaur Pratibha & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra through the Secretary & Ors. (2019) SCC OnLine Bom 597 – referred to.

Vaijanath s/o Tatyarao Shinde v. Secretary, Marathwada Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Devgiri College Campus, Aurangabad & Ors. 2006 (6) Mh.L.J. 682 – referred to.