Back
2019 Supreme(Bom) 1420
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
UJJAL BHUYAN, J.
Bharati Vidyapeeth - Appellant
Versus
Ulka Pradeep Adhav - Respondent
Writ Petition (S T) No. 9486 of 2019; Writ Petition No. 601, 873, 4086 of 2019
Decided On : 11-11-2019
Advocate Appeared:
Nitin Deshpande, Adv., S.A. Rajeshirke, Adv., I.M. Khairdi, Adv., Prabhanjan Gujar, Adv., N.C. Walimbe, Adv., S.L. Babar, Adv., P.V. Nelson Rajan, Adv., C.D. Mali, Adv.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Employment and Service Matter - Dispute Relating to Inter-se Seniority - Promotions - Senior-Most Teacher - Post of Headmaster - Petitioners have assailed legality and correctness of order - Appeal filed by respondent No.1 - Case of respondent No.1 as projected in appeal is that she was appointed in Bharati Vidyapeeth, Pune (School) on 13th June, 1983 and at time of her appointment her qualification was S.S.C., D.Ed. Prior to her appointment in the school she was serving in Sarvodaya Shikshan Sanstha since 16th July, 1981, but said institution was transferred and amalgamated with school on 13th June, 1983 - Held, As has rightly been pointed out by learned counsel for respondent No.1, in a case of inter-se seniority dispute between two groups of school teachers, school authority has to maintain a neutral approach though it may have initially decided seniority in one way which has been reversed by School Tribunal. Reversal of order of school authority by School Tribunal would not make school authority or Headmaster or Headmistress the aggrieved person - It is teacher who has suffered the order of the School Tribunal who can be construed to be aggrieved person and it is he/she who has to assail such order of School Tribunal - It is evident that respondent Nos.3 and 4 are persons who can be construed to be aggrieved in law vis-a-vis decision of School Tribunal and not school or its Headmaster / Headmistress - Merely filing affidavit by respondent No.3 in Writ Petition supporting case of the petitioners would not confer locus on the petitioners - It is trite that a respondent cannot seek relief in the writ proceeding instituted by the petitioner - Since challenge has not been made by person aggrieved, court is not inclined to entertain the same - Writ petitions dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
UJJAL BHUYAN, J.
1. This order will dispose of Writ Petition (St.) No.9486 of 2019, Writ Petition No.601 of 2019, Writ Petition No.873 of 2019 and Writ Petition No.4086 of 2019.
2. Heard Mr.Nitin Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition (St.) No.9486 of 2019 and Writ Petition (St.) No.4086 of 2019; Mr.S.A.Rajeshirke, learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.601 and 873 of 2019; Mr.I.M. Khairdi, learned counsel for respondent No.1 in Writ Petition Nos.601 and 873 of 2019; Mr.Prabhanjan Gujar, learned counsel for respondent No.1 in Writ Petition (St.) No.9486 of 2019 and Writ Petition No.4086 of 2019; Mr.N.C.Walimbe, learned AGP for the respondent-State in Writ Petition (St.) No.9486 of 2019; Mr.S.L.Babar, learned AGP for the respondent-State in Writ Petition No.601 of 2019; Mr.P.V.Nelson Rajan, learned AGP for the respondent-State in Writ Petition No.873 of 2019; and Mr.C.D.Mali, learned AGP for the respondent-State in Writ Petition No. 4086 of 2019.
3. Subject matter of all the writ petitions pertains to inter-se seniority between two groups of teachers in secondary school and the consequential promotions to the post of Headmaster/ Headmistress.
4. For a proper perspective, it would be apposite to state individual facts of each case briefly. Writ Petition (St.) No. 9486 of 2019
5. The two Petitioners in this case are Bharati Vidyapeeth and its Headmistress. Petitioners have assailed the legality and correctness of the order dated 27th February, 2019 passed by the School Tribunal, Pune in Appeal No.25 of 2017 filed by respondent No.1.
5.1 Case of respondent No.1 as projected in the appeal is that she was appointed in the Bharati Vidyapeeth, Pune (School) on 13th June, 1983 and at the time of her appointment her qualification was S.S.C., D.Ed. Prior to her appointment in the school she was serving in Sarvodaya Shikshan Sanstha since 16th July, 1981, but the said institution was transferred and amalgamated with the school on 13th June, 1983.
5.2 The school authority prepared seniority list in which respondent No.1 was shown as the senior-most teacher.
5.3. In the course of her service, respondent No.1 obtained B.A. degree in the year 2010.
5.4. On the other hand, Sharda Tatyasaheb Patil, who was arrayed as respondent No.3 in the appeal, was appointed in the school on 13th June, 1988. At the time of her appointment qualification of Sau. Patil was B.A., B.Ed.. From the date of her appointment, she was included in category 'C'.
5.5. After respondent No.1 acquired the higher qualification of B.A. in the year 2010, it is contended that she ought to have been placed in category 'C' with retrospective effect from the date of her appointment i.e. from 13th June, 1983 in terms of the provisions contained in the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions and Service) Act, 1977 and the Rules framed thereunder, but without considering this aspect of the matter, the school promoted Sau. Patil to the post of Headmistress on 1st July, 2017 superseding respondent No.1.
5.6. This was challenged by respondent No.1 by filing Appeal No.25 of 2017 before the School Tribunal.
5.7. The School Tribunal by the order dated 27th February, 2019 set aside the promotion order of Sau. Patil and directed the school to promote respondent No.1 to the post of Headmistress with full back-wages and consequential benefits with effect from 1st July, 2017 within 30 days.
5.8. It is this order which has been impugned by the petitioners in the present proceeding where Sharda Tatyasaheb Patil has been arrayed as respondent No.4.
Writ Petition No.601 of 2019
6. In this Writ petition also the two petitioners are the school and its Headmaster. They have assailed order dated 23rd October, 2018 passed by the School Tribunal, Kolhapur in Appeal No.40 of 2018 filed by respondent No.1.
6.2. Respondent No.1 contended in his appeal that he was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the school on 11th June, 1987. At the time of his appointment,
