1. Dispute regarding inter se seniority of Assistant Teachers in secondary schools governed by the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2019 Supreme(SC) 6
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ASHOK BHUSHAN, AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.
KU. BHAWANA – Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. – Respondent(s)
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).11934 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP(C ) No(s). 28527 of 2016)
Decided On : 04-01-2019
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Seniority in the same category depends upon length of officiation in that category.
Seniority in the same category depends upon length of officiation in that category.
Subject
Employment Law - Seniority Disputes
Act Referred
MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS CONDITIONS OF SERVICE REGULATION ACT: S.16
MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS CONDITIONS OF SERVICE RULES: R.12(3), R.12
MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS CONDITIONS OF SERVICE RULES: R.12(3), R.12
Headnote
Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 – Rule 12, Schedule ‘F’ – Seniority in descending order from category ‘A’ to ‘F’ and lengthy of officiation – Respondent 5 appointed as trained teacher and become member of category ‘C’ in 1995 – Appellant, on the other hand, passing B.Ed and becoming member of category ‘C’ in 1997 – Authorities and High Court rightly holding respondent 5 senior to appellant. (Para 10)
Facts of the case:
The dispute in this appeal pertains to the inter se seniority of the appellant vis-à-vis 5th respondent, who were appointed as Assistant Teacher in Secondary School and their services are governed by the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981.
Finding of the Court:
Authorities and the High Court rightly held respondent 5 senior to appellant.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Krishna Mohan K., Ms. Dania Nayyar, Mr. Pawanshree Agrawal, AOR
For Respondent(s): Mr. Samrat Shinde, Adv., Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR, Mr. Nitin Bharadwaj, AOR, Mr. Subodh Patil, Adv.
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Krishna Mohan K., Ms. Dania Nayyar, Mr. Pawanshree Agrawal, AOR
For Respondent(s): Mr. Samrat Shinde, Adv., Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR, Mr. Nitin Bharadwaj, AOR, Mr. Subodh Patil, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Whether seniority depends on total length of service in cadre or the date of acquiring specific training qualifications to enter a higher seniority category. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. Seniority in secondary schools is categorized in descending order; teachers in lower categories cannot rank senior to those in higher categories regardless of continuous service. (Para 9 , 10 , 13 )
4. Seniority among secondary school teachers is determined by their category under Schedule 'F' of the Rules, 1981, with higher categories prevailing over lower ones. (Para 9 , 10 )
5. Appeal dismissed. (Para 14 )
6. How is seniority determined for secondary school teachers under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981?
Seniority is determined based on categories (A through H) defined in Schedule 'F' of the Rules. These categories represent a ladder of seniority in descending order, meaning teachers in higher categories take precedence over those in lower categories. (Para 8 , 9 )
7. Can an untrained teacher who later acquires training qualifications claim seniority over a teacher who was trained at the time of appointment?
No. A teacher who enters a higher seniority category only after acquiring professional qualifications cannot claim seniority over a teacher who was already a member of that higher category at the time of their appointment. (Para 10 , 13 )
8. Does the status of a teacher as temporary or permanent affect the determination of inter se seniority under the 1981 Rules?
No. Seniority is determined by the total continuous service rendered in a particular cadre as per Rule 12 and Schedule 'F'; later confirmation or becoming permanent is not the decisive factor for determining seniority. (Para 12 )
JUDGMENT
Rastogi, J.
1. The dispute in this appeal pertains to the inter se seniority of the appellant vis-a-vis 5th respondent, who were appointed as Assistant Teacher in Secondary School and their services are governed by the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (hereinafter being referred to as “Rules 1981”).
2. The brief facts that culled out in a nut shell are that the appellant was appointed as Rest. (untrained) Teacher in High School, Smt. Sindhutai Poreddiwar, Gogaon, Distt. Gadchiroli, with effect from 15th July, 1994 vide order of appointment dated 27th June, 1994. Her appointment was purely on temporary basis for a period from 15th July, 1994 to 7th May, 1995 on the terms & conditions as laid down in Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and the Rules of 1981 framed thereunder. She qualified her B.Ed examination and became a trained teacher on 19th September, 1997. At the same time, the impleaded 5th respondent was appointed as trained Assistant Teacher vide order of appointment dated 13th August, 1997. On the date of appointment, he was holder of the qualification of B.A., B.Ed. and was a trained teacher under the Scheme of Rules, 1981. At one point of time, the appellant was placed senior to the 5th respondent in the category of Assistant Teacher that gave a cause of grievance to the 5th respondent. If there is any grievance to the teaching/non-teaching staff in reference to inter se seniority, such dispute has to be adjudicated by the Education Officer as provided under Rule 12 (3) of the Scheme of Rules, 1981.
3. The Competent Authority adverted to the rival claims of the parties and observed in its order dated 31st March, 2003 holding that the 5th respondent was appointed on 13th August, 1997 as a trained teacher holding the qualification of B.A. B.Ed. and at the time of entry into service, he was in category table ‘C’. At the same time, the appellant although was appointed as Assistant Teacher (untrained) with effect from 15th July, 1994 but she qualified her B.Ed on 19th September, 1997 and became member of category table ‘C’ only on acquiring qualification of B.Ed. and accordingly the 5th Respondent became senior to the appellant in category ‘C’ to Schedule ‘F’ annexed to Rule 12 of Rules, 1981. It was upheld by the High Court under the impugned judgment which is a subject matter before us.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that practically inter se seniority is not an issue in the present matter although raised before the High Court but her grievance primarily is regarding salary escalation which is extended to the graduates as defined in Rule 2(j) annexed to Schedule ‘B’ to the Rules, 1981. Learned counsel further submits that the 5th respondent being a temporary teacher cannot claim seniority until stood confirmed and seniority could not have been claimed by him over the appellant before becoming member of the Rules, 1981. Learned counsel further submits that under the scheme of Rules, seniority is determined on the basis of longer officiation of service in the cadre, her later acquiring the qualification of B.Ed and become a trained Assistant Teacher would not take away her right of seniority envisaged under Rule 12 of Rules, 1981.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that 5th respondent was initially appointed as a trained teacher and the appellant acquired the B.Ed. qualification later and became a member of Category ‘C’ of Schedule ‘F’ annexed to Rule 12 and this fact has been noticed by the competent authority while determining the inter se seniority of the appellant vis-a-vis the 5th respondent and confirmed by the High Court on dismissal of the writ petition and needs no further interference.
6. We heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the materials on record.
7. Before adverting to the question raised for considerat
