COMMON JUDGMENT :- This group of petitions is being disposed of by common judgment since identical questions are involved therein. The petitioners are Head Master, Supervisor and Assistant Teachers having qualification of B. P. Ed. besides the degree in graduation of Arts/Commerce/B.Sc. They impugn order dated 14th July, 2005 and consequential seniority list drawn by the respondent No.4-Education Officer. By the impugned order, the respondent No. 6-Tulshiram s/o Tukaram Kale marched ahead of the petitioners in the seniority list which is under challenge in these petitions.

2. Maratha Shikshan Sanstha-respondent No. 5 runs various schools, including three Junior Colleges in Aurangabad and Jalna districts. The petitioners are appointed to work as Assistant Teachers and hold educational qualification of B.P.Ed. apart from basic qualification of being graduates. Respondent No. 6Tulshiram Kale is also working as Assistant Teacher in a school run by respondent No.5. He is B.Com., B.Ed. He raised objections regarding the correctness of seniority list and promotions made on its basis. He filed Writ Petition No. 4367/2003 in this Court, challenging the seniority list and the inaction of the Education Officer in the context of his representation dated 1-82003 for re-fixation of the seniority. The writ petition was partly allowed and the Education Officer-respondent No.4 was directed to decide the seniority of the petitioners in accordance with law. The Education Officer considered the representation of the respondent No.6, heard Head Master, Supervisor and Assistant Teachers. The petitioners opposed the contentions of the respondent No. 6 on the ground that the B.P.Ed. qualified teachers were included in the seniority list before Government Resolution dated 14th June, 1987 was issued and hence the seniority list could not be retrospectively changed. The representation of respondent No.6 was allowed. The Education Officer held that the petitioners were not eligible to be enlisted in the seniority list of Assistant Teachers before the date of Government Resolution dated 25th November, 1988 whereby relaxation was granted and they were allowed to be included in the category "C". The objection regarding erroneous placement of eleven (11) Assistant Teachers having B.P.Ed. qualification in the seniority list from the dates of their appointments was upheld by the Education Officer. The Education Officer-respondent No. 4 directed, therefore, to rectify the seniority list of category "C". The end product of the impugned order would be that the respondent No. 6 will get seniority position over and above the petitioners. The petitioners are aggrieved by such order passed by the respondent No.4-Education Officer.

3. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioners is that they were appointed on various dates as Assistant Teachers. They are senior to the respondent No.6 in the seniority list which was in existence much before the impugned order was passed. They were appointed before the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Act, 1977 (for short, "M.E.P.S. Act") came into force. Some of them were promoted in view of the seniority position indicated in the previous seniority list. The respondent No.6 was appointed on 1st October, 1973 and is B.Com. B.Ed. He acquired B.Ed. qualification on 5-6-1978. He never raised objection about their eligibility of being appointed as Assistant teachers and their inclusion in the seniority list of category "C" employees. He made representation to the respondent No.4-Education Officer only after the promotions were being made. They were not added as parties in Writ Petition No. 4367 of 2003 filed by respondent No.6 Tulshiram Kale. Respondent No.4 Education Officer failed to consider the relevant provisions of the law and rules of seniority. Respondent No.4 did not consider the fact that by virtue of the Government Resolutions dated 4-7-1973 and 13-5-1986 the H. D. Ed./B.P.Ed. and B.Ed. (physical e

Click Here to Read the rest of this document