Per REBELLO F.I. J.: - The petitioner has impugned the seniority list by which respondent Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 have been placed senior to the petitioner. The respondent No.9 in fact is junior to the petitioner who stands at Sr. No.7 in the seniority list at Exh. A to the petition. The petitioner therefore, can have no grievance to the seniority of respondent No.9.

The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 14-6-1976 and was possessing post graduate decree of M.Sc. The petitioner obtained diploma in higher education in the year 1980 and R Ed. in the year 1991. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.5 to 8 joined after the petitioner and in these circumstances, they ought not to have been placed senior to the petitioner.

2. Rules have been framed under the provisions of the M.E.P.S. Regulation Act, 1977 which are known as Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as Rules).

Rule 12 deals with seniority. It enjoins on the management to prepare a seniority list in accordance with the guide-lines laid down in Schedule "F". We are concerned with Category "C" of Schedule "F". The method of determining inter se seniority is set out therein.

Respondent No.5 joined the school on 11-6-1979 and acquired the teaching qualifications of B.Ed. on 28-5-1979. The respondent No.6 joined the school on 16-5-1980 and had acquired the training qualification of REd. on 24-8-1979. The respondent No. 7 joined the school on 27-7-1979, and had acquired the qualification of D.Ed. on 4-7-1975. In the chart at Exh. "A" it is shown that the said respondent has D.Ed. qualification and not REd. It is also pointed out that the said candidate is likely to retire shortly. The respondent No.8 Rajendran was appointed on 13-6-1986 and acquired B.Ed. qualifications on 31-5-1983. All these respondents in terms of Schedule "C" are senior to the petitioner having obtained the graduate teaching qualification prior to the petitioner in terms of the Rules. The respondent Rajendran has since retired. In other words, in so far as challenge to the seniority of these respondents is concerned, the petitioner really can have no grievance. The petitioner, had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 1865 of 2002 about fixation of inter se seniority. This Court directed that the petitioner be heard by the Education Inspector. That was done and by communication of 1-12-2003 the petitioner seniority in terms of Rule 12, sub-rule "c" was directed to be fixed on the day she obtained BEd. qualification. Exh. A is in those terms. We do not find any illegality in the seniority list and consequently the relief to that extent cannot be granted.

3. The petitioner has also sought the following relief.

"That the writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction be issued ordering and directing respondent No. 1 and 2 to remove the 9th respondent as Head Mistress and appoint the petitioner as the Head Mistress of the second respondent." The learned Counsel for the petitioner points out to the reply filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 9. In Para 3 of the said affidavit in reply, it is set out that the said trust is a minority institution and as a minority institution, the respondent No. 1 is not obliged to appoint only the seniormost teacher as Head Mistress considering the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Act, 1977, hereinafter referred to as the "ACT".

The respondent No.2 is a secondary school and not a primary school. The respondent No.9 was appointed as Head Mistress with effect from 1-8-2003. The appointment has been approved by the letter of the Education Officer dated 3-3-2004 subject to the outcome of any order that may be passed in the writ petition. Admittedly, in the order of seniority the respondent No. 9 is at Sr. No. 13 having acquired B.Ed. qualification on 1406-1993. Section 3 of the Act dearly contemplates that the provisions of the Act will not apply to the appointment of t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document