Seniority and qualifications of teachers must be considered in promotions, and special favors should not influence promotion decisions.

JUDGMENT

N.B. Suryawanshi, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.

2. This petition takes exception to the judgment of the School Tribunal, Nagpur in Appeal STN No.42/2017 dated 2. 01.2019, whereby the appeal filed by the respondent no.2 is partly allowed and she was granted symbolic promotion to the post of Headmistress and consequential benefits.

3. Facts shorn of unnecessary details are as under :

The petitioner no.1 is the Society runs Mahatma Gandhi Girls High School, Vaishalinagar, Nagpur-17. The petitioner no.2 is the Headmistress of the said school. The respondent no.1 is the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur. The respondent no.2 is the Teacher, who by filing appeal before the School Tribunal, challenged her supersession to the post of Headmistress , as according to her, the petitioner no.2 was junior to her and still she was promoted on the post of Headmistress, as she is the wife of the Secretary of the petitioner no.1.

4. The respondent no.2 possesses qualification of BA, MA, D.Ed. and B.Ed. In the year 1989, vide appointment order dated 1.7.1989, the respondent no.2 was appointed as Lower Division Teacher on clear and permanent vacancy after following due procedure of law. Her services were approved by the Education Officer on 26.12.1989 on probation and after completion of two years probation, the Education Officer granted approval to the appointment of the second respondent on regular and permanent basis. With the prior permission of the school, the respondent no.2 improved her qualification and acquired B.A. degree. Therefore, she was upgraded to the post of trained graduate teacher under 25% trained graduate teacher quota in the year 1995. The second respondent thereafter in the year 2001 acquired B.Ed. qualification and thereby entered in Category C of the trained graduate teachers.

5. The petitioner no.2 was appointed as trained graduate teacher on 1.7.2004 and she entered in Category C of the trained graduate teacher from the date of her initial appointment w.e.f. 1.7.2004. The petitioner no.2 was appointed on the post of Headmistress by superseding the claim of the respondent no.2. The petitioner no.2 was given promotion on the post of Headmistress as she was wife of the Secretary of the petitioner no.1. By keeping other employees including the respondent no.2 in dark, her proposal for approval to the said promotion was forwarded to the Education Officer, who without verifying the documents granted approval to the promotion of petitioner no.2, vide order dated 15.11.2017. It is to be noted here that the Education Officer, vide order dated 8.9.2016, had declared the petitioner no.2 as surplus teacher. Only with a view to save the services of petitioner no.2, the respondent no.1 management, in collusion with the Education Officer, secured the approval to the promotion of the petitioner no.2.

On 16.12.2017, the respondent no.2 was declared as surplus. She challenged the said order by filing Writ Petition No.432/2018. This Court, vide order dated 07.08.2018 dismissed the writ petition by observing as under :

"Coram : B.P. Dharmadhikari and

Z.A. Haq, JJ.

Dated : August 07, 2018.

1. The petitioner attempts to demonstrate that she cannot be declared surplus. According to the petitioner, it has to be either respondent no.4 or then one Mr. Sonare. Said Sonare is not party before this Court.

2. In so far as the respondent no.4 is concerned, on the date on which the petitioner is declared surplus she was already promoted as Headmistress and therefore was not in cadre of the petitioner. Her promotion has been independently challenged before the School Tribunal and as such its validity cannot be gone into by this Court.

3. In this situation, we find that the impugned order dated 16/12/2017 cannot be interfered with by this Court in writ jurisdiction.

The petition is, therefore, dismissed.

Pending applications are also disposed of. No costs."

6. The respondent no.2 ch