Important Point—Where no consequential action has been taken by Management on the basis of determination of Education officer, employee can seek a recourse of his remedy against decision under rule 12.

1. Rule, returnable forthwith. The respondents waive service.

2. By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the order dated 16th July, 2015 passed by the Education Officer (Secondary) under Rule 12 of the Maharashtra Employees Of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (for short “MEPS Rules) thereby declaring the respondent no.5 as senior to the petitioner. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this writ petition are as under :

3. The respondent no.1 is a trust/society registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 and conducts the respondent no.2 school. The petitioner passed B.A. Examination in the year 1980 and obtained B.Ed. degree in the year 1983. The petitioner belongs to O.B.C., whereas the respondent no.5 belongs to open category.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that on 4th July, 1983 the petitioner was appointed in the respondent no.2 school in a clear and permanent vacancy as an assistant teacher in the trained under graduate scale. The petitioner was though appointed in clear and permanent post was given temporary appointment upto the year 1980 and was continued. It is her case that her appointment was approved in clear and permanent vacancy from 4th July, 1983 vide approval dated 16th March, 1984. The respondent no.5 was appointed as an assistant teacher on 24th June, 1987 in the respondent no.2 school.

5. On or about 29th March, 1989, the services of the petitioner came to be terminated by the respondent no.1 management without any reasons. The petitioner impugned the said action on the part of the management by filing an appeal before the School Tribunal (41 of 1989). The petitioner was thereafter taken back in service by the respondent no.1. The said appeal filed by the petitioner was accordingly disposed of.

6. It is the case of the petitioner that when the respondent no.5 was appointed on 24th June, 1987, she was appointed purely on temporary basis and for a fixed period i.e. from 24th June, 1987 to 30th April, 1988. The respondent no.5 came to be placed in trained graduate scale. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner objected to the said appointment of the respondent no.5 orally to the said post of assistant teacher in trained graduate scale on the ground that the petitioner already had possessed such qualification and could have been accommodated in the said trained graduate scale, the petitioner having been appointed in the year 1983.

7. It is the case of the petitioner that when the seniority list of the respondent no.2 school was circulated by the management in the year 2008, the petitioner was shown junior to the respondent no.5 though she was possessing the degree of B.A. B.Ed. when she was appointed in the year 1983 itself in the respondent no.2 school. The petitioner accordingly signed the said seniority list under protest. It is the case of the petitioner that from the year 2009 onwards the petitioner was shown senior to the respondent no.5.

8. In the academic year 2009, the petitioner was shown at serial no.5, whereas the respondent no.5 was shown at serial no.6 in the seniority list. For the academic years, 2010, 2011 and 2012, the petitioner was shown at serial no.3, whereas the respondent no.5 was shown at serial no.4. For the academic year 2013, the petitioner was shown at serial no.1, whereas the respondent no.5 was shown at serial no.2 in the seniority list dated 1st July, 2013. It is the case of the petitioner that from 2009 till 1st July, 2013, the respondent no.5 did not raise any objection in respect of the seniority list circulated by the management showing the petitioner senior to the respondent no.5. The respondent no.5 however, raised an objection in respect of the seniority list dated 1st July, 2013 reserving her right to the post of Headmis