B. R. GAVAI, J.

( 1 ) RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. In Writ Petition No. 3311/2004, Mr. A. G. Mujumdar, A. G. P. waives notice for respondent No. 1; Mrs. Munshi waives notice for respondents No. 2 and 3 and Shri Pardhy waives notice for respondents No. 4 and 5. In Writ Petition No. 3942/2004 and Writ Petition No. 3943/2004, Mr. A. G. Mujumdar, A. G. P. waives notice for respondent No. 1; Mrs. Munshi waives notice for respondents No. 2 and 3. In Writ Petition No. 6113/2004, Mr. D. B. Patel, the learned A. G. P. waives notice for respondents No. 1, 2 and 3; Shri Pardhy waives notice for respondents no. 4 and 5. Heard by consent of parties.

( 2 ) SINCE a common question, as to whether the service conditions of teachers working in the Secondary Schools managed by Zilla Parishads, are governed by the provisions of the Secondary School Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code) or by the provisions of Maharashtra Civil Services (Regulation of seniority) Rules, 1982, (hereinafter referred to as the MCSR rules) is involved in all these four petitions, they are being decided by this common judgment. The facts in brief in each of the petitions are as under: the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3311 of 2004, was appointed as assistant Teacher in the High School run by Zilla Parishad, on 5th June, 1975. The petitioner was possessing the requisite qualifications i. e. Degree in education (B. Ed.) on the date of his appointment. Whereas respondents No. 4 and 5 were appointed on 1st July, 1974. They acquired the qualifications i. e. B. Ed, subsequent to the date on which the petitioner was appointed. The petitioner has challenged the position in seniority list wherein respondents No. 4 and 5 have been shown senior to the petitioner. It is the contention of the petitioner that the seniority list will have to be prepared on the basis of the dates on which the Teachers acquired the necessary teaching qualifications i. e. B. Ed, and as such he is entitled to be shown senior to respondents No. 4 and 5. The petitioner claims that the promotions given to the respondents No. 4 and 5 to the posts of Head Master vide order dated 14-6-2004, are liable to be quashed and set aside and the petitioner is entitled to be promoted with effect from the date on which the respondents No. 4 and 5, were promoted to the posts of Head Master.

( 3 ) TWELVE petitioners in Writ Petition No. 3942/2004 and five petitioners in writ Petition No. 3942/2004 are challenging the seniority list published by the respondent Zilla Parishad as on 1st January, 2004. It is the contention of the petitioners in these petitions that though the seniority list ought to have been prepared by the respondent-Zilla Parishad, on the basis of the dates on which teachers acquired B. Ed, qualifications, the seniority list is prepared on the basis of the date of entry in the service, without taking into consideration the date on which the Teacher has acquired the necessary teaching qualification. It is the contention of the petitioners that this is not permissible in law and as such, the seniority list is liable to be quashed and set aside and the respondent-Zilla parishad needs to be directed to prepare the seniority list in accordance with law.

( 4 ) THE petitioner in Writ Petition No. 6113/2004, who has been declared surplus on the basis of the seniority list, has also raised similar challenge. According to this petitioner also, the seniority list is to be prepared on the basis of the dates on which the Teachers acquired B. Ed, qualification. According to the petitioner, if the seniority list is prepared in accordance with this principle, then he will be placed above the respondents No. 4 and 5 in the seniority list and as such the respondent No. 5 is liable to be declared surplus in place of the petitioner.

( 5 ) WE have heard the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners as well as the respondents.

( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the seniority of