A. P. DESHPANDE, J. :- A conflict in the views expressed by two Division Benches of this Court was noticed by one of us and hence, a reference made to the Honourable the Chief Justice with a request to refer the matter to a Bench comprising of more than two Judges. This Full Bench is constituted pursuant to the said reference. We formulate the point of reference as herein low:-

" For promotion to the post of Head Master of a Primary School, whether seniority of the teacher is to be counted from the date of initial appointment, or from the date of acquisition of educational and training qualification ?"

2. In a judgment reported in 2003(3) Mh.L.J. 438 in case of Chintaman maji Mahakalkar vs. Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Wardha others, the Division Bench held that the seniority of primary school teachers has to be determined on the basis of date of joining service and continuous lciation irrespective of the date of acquiring D.Ed. qualification, whereas a contrary view is expressed in another Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2003(3) Mh.L.J. 206, in case of Rajhans Narayanrao Shahapure and others vs. Prabhavati Vithalrao Kamble and others. The Division Bench in Rajhans’s case has held that there is no doubt that for the purpose of seniority, initial date of appointment is required to be considered but for teachers who fulfil the required qualifications for such appointment, the learned Judges counted the seniority of primary school teacher from the date of acquisition of

B.Ed. qualification.

3. Few facts that are necessary to consider the rival contentions are set out rein below:

The petitioner is in the employment of respondent No.l/Society and is working as an Assistant Teacher in a primary school having Standards from I to. The respondent No.1 promoted the respondent No.2 to the post of Head master and aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal before the School Tribunal, contending that the promotion granted to the respondent No.2 being in supersession of the claim of the petitioner, the same be quashed, it being illegal. Tribunal allowed the appeal by holding that the seniority need to be counted from the date of acquiring training qualification. The respondent No.2 before the Tribunal is the petitioner before this Court and he has challenged the judgment

and order passed by the Tribunal.

The petitioners date of initial appointment as a primary school teacher is -3-1972 at which point of time, he had the qualification of S.S.C. The petitioner proved his qualification while in service by passing Diploma in Education .Ed.) examination in the year 1981, whereas the respondent No.2 was initially appointed on 1-7-1973 and at the time of his appointment, he was possessing qualification of S.S.C. The respondent No. 2 acquired the qualification Diploma in Education (D.Ed.) in the year 1980 i.e. prior to the petitioner seniority is to be reckoned from the date of initial appointment, and officiation from the said date is to be taken to be the criteria to seniority, the present petitioner will be senior. However, if the seniority is to be counted from the date of acquiring the requisite qualification (D present case), the respondent No.2 will be senior.

In the above factual matrix, we proceed to consider the issue.

4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has con Rule 12 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (C Service) Rules, 1981 (For short, "M.E.P.S. Rules") mandates the every school to prepare and maintain seniority list of the teaching accordance with the guidelines laid down in Schedule "F". Inviting

to Schedule "F", it is submitted that Clause 1 which deals with guidelines fixation of seniority of teachers in the primary schools provide that of primary school teachers shall be based on the date of joining, continuous officiation. It is submitted by Mr. N. B. Khandare, learn appearing on behalf of the