AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. (Oral)—Petitioner - an Assistant Teacher in High School questions supersession in the matter of promotion to the post of Headmistress of a school run by respondent No. 2. She has been superseded by respondent No. 3.
Shri Gaikwad, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner joined employment on 01.09.1980 in high school as an Assistant Teacher with qualifications as Graduate and a Trained person. Hence, right from day one her name was included in Category "C" of Schedule-F in the seniority list prepared as per Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981.
Though respondent No. 3 had joined earlier, she was possessing Dip. Ed. (1 year) Course as training qualification and was not graduate. She graduated in the year 1977. Hence, after she put in 10 years of service i.e. in 1987, her name was entered in Category "C" in the seniority list, as such she was junior to petitioner.
By the impugned order 02.05.2002, respondent No. 1 Education Officer has granted approval to promotion of respondent no.3 as Headmistress from 01.05.2002. This order is questioned by contending that she has been inadvertently accepted as senior to petitioner.
Shri Lonare, learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 and Shri Anand Parchure, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 are opposing the petition. According to them, respondent No. 3 joined the employment on 01.07.2009 with S.S.C., Dip. Ed. Qualification. She obtained B.A. degree in 1977, hence, computing 10 years of service from 1969, her name has been rightly entered in Category "C" in 1979 i.e. prior to petitioner stepping in the employment. Respondent No. 3 is, therefore, senior to the petitioner.
Perusal of communication dated 05.02.1988 sent by the Director of Education to various Education Officers disclose that teachers with S.T.C., Dip. Ed. or other training qualification should be entered in Category "C" after 10 years of service. In that resolution, training course Dip. T. (one year) also finds mention. This communication therefore, reveals that the respondent No. 3 who has completed Dip.T. (one year) Course can sit in Category "C" only after expiry of 10 years from 1977. The Management therefore, has on 08.10.1990 rightly informed the present petitioner that respondent No. 3 could not have been senior to petitioner.
However, the respondent No. 1 in reply affidavit before this Court in paragraph No. 5 has pointed out a Government resolution dated 04.05.1990 to support the action of granting approval to respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3 has filed reply affidavit and in paragraph No. 4 came up with a defence that as she joined Dip. T. Course after completion of pre-university (first year of college), her Dip. T. course has been treated as a course of two years duration.
In view of this specific defence, we have heard the respective counsel on the question as to how a course of one year duration can otherwise become a course of two years duration ? Contents of Dip.T. Course cannot undergo any change, depending upon previous qualification of a person admitted to it. Respondent no.3 or then respondent No. 1 could not justify this defence. Perusal of Government Resolution dated 04.05.1990 also does not change this position. It expressly requires a person holding STC etc., qualification to put in 10 years service after obtaining graduate qualification.
We therefore, find that respondent No. 3 could not have entered the Category "C" before 1987. It therefore, follows that and he has been erroneously treated as senior to petitioner and this has resulted in supersession of claim of petitioner.
Petition has been filed before this Court in September, 2002 and it also contains an interim prayer, however, this Court has not granted any interim relief. Petitioner was 47 years old therein and therefore, is about 61 years as of now. She has already been superannuated. Respondent No. 3 was 58 years on 14.08.2006, therefore, she has obviously been superannuated.
Shri Parchure, learned counsel at this stage upon instructions states that respondent No. 3 has not been paid salary as headmistress and her pension also has been fixed as Assistant Teacher.
In this situation, we find that interest of justice can be met with by directing respondent No. 1 to release salary of respondent no.3 as Headmistress for the work done by her till her superannuation and to compute her retiremental benefits accordingly.
As we have found that petitioner should have been promoted as headmistress in place of respondent No. 3 from 01.05.2002 till her superannuation, she will be also entitled to salary fixed accordingly on the post of Headmistress with necessary increments, but, for the period after superannuation of respondent no. 3 and till her superannuation. Her pension and other benefits shall also be worked out accordingly. Respondent No. 2 Management is therefore, directed to supply necessary documents to the office of respondent No. 1 within a period of four weeks from today.
The respondent No. 1 shall thereafter complete further exercise within a period of 6 months. Parties are given liberty to challenge the said exercise if they are aggrieved by it. Writ Petition is, thus partly allowed and disposed of. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs.