C. L. PANGARKAR, J.

( 1 ) BY this writ petition the petitioner a teacher challenges the order passed by the Education Officer holding respondents 4 and 5 to be senior to the petitioner. ( 2 ) THE facts are as follows: petitioner was appointed as a Assistant Teacher in the school run by respondent no. 2 for the academic session 1995-96 vide order dated 14. 1. 1996. The Education Officer had sanctioned one additional section each for Standard 5 to 7. As per the staff approval sanctioned by the Education Officer, there were in all 6 classes of Standard 5 to 7 in the school run by respondent No. 2. Petitioner submits that as per Government policy, teachers at ratio 1 : 3 are admissible for one class of Standard 5 to 7. Taking into account the ratio of the admissible teachers in these classes Education Officer had sanctioned 8 lower division teachers for Standard 5 to 7. By Order dated 9. 10. 1996 the education Officer granted approval for the academic sessions 1996-97. In fact two posts of trained graduate teachers in 25% quota are admissible for standard 5 to 7 as can be conveniently gathered from the said approval. The total number of graduate under graduate teachers admissible to the classes of standard 5 to 7 has to be in ratio of 25:75 meaning thereby that 25% teachers are to be trained graduate teachers and 75% teachers are to be under graduates. Respondent no. 2 School therefore issued an advertisement on 28. 12. 1998 inviting applications for the 4 posts of Assistant Teachers. As per the advertisement two posts from open category were to be filled in from 25% quota reserved for the trained graduates and as such applications were invited from persons possessing educational qualification of B. A. B. Ed. Pursuant to the said advertisement the petitioner had applied for the post of teacher and he was appointed on the 25% quota reserved for the open category. Even though the appointment of petitioner was in 25% quota (in trained graduate pay scales) still the petitioner was paid salary in the grade of Rx. 1200-2040 instead of Rs. 1400-2600. The said discrepancy was brought to the notice of the Management and considering the entitlement the management passed a resolution on 3. 5. 1996 to grant pay scale of 1400-2600 to the petitioner. The Head Master of the school accordingly recommended to the education Officer to grant petitioner the scale of 1400-2600. Thereafter petitioner was appointed as assistant Teacher in upper division on standard 8th to 10th vide Order dated dated 7. 4. 1998 and even approval was granted. It is the contention of the petitioner that he possessed the requisite educational qualification and training qualification on the initial date of his appointment. Petitioner submits that he held such educational qualification the day on which he was appointed. He fell in category 'c' of Schedule F. Petitioner submits that respondent No. 3 was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 23. 12. 1996 so also respondent No. 4. Both of them were trained graduates and they also fell from that date in category C. It is contended that in the seniority list maintained by the respondent No. 2 the petitioner was always shown as senior to respondents 3 and 4. Petitioner was promoted as Head Master from 1. 12. 2008, thereafter respondent No. 3 approached the Education Officer agitating his grievance. The Education Officer vide his letter dated 12. 12. 2008 invited the petitioner and others for hearing on the question of seniority and held the respondent No. 3 to be senior to the petitioner and petitioner is aggrieved thereby. The petitioner submits that the only remedy that was in fact available to the respondents 3 and 4 was to file an appeal under section 9 to the School Tribunal and they could not have approached the Education Officer. Education Officer could not have refixed the seniority.

( 3 ) THE respondent No. 3 alone has filed a return and has contended that the petitioner was never senior to respondent. Education officer has ri

Click Here to Read the rest of this document