The main legal point established in the judgment is that Assistant Teachers working in Zilla Parishad Schools are eligible to participate in LDCE 2017 for promotion/appointment to the post of Deputy Education Officer through the District Technical Services Stream, as per the interpretation of the Recruitment Rules 2016 and the previous judgment.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep V. Marne, J.

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and the learned AGP appearing for the Respondent-State.

2. These two Petitions challenge common judgment and order dated June 21, 2023 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) in Original Application Nos.327 of 2022 and 344 of 2022. The Original Applications were instituted by Petitioners seeking a declaration that they are eligible for participation in further selection process of Limited Departmental Competitive Examination 2017 (LDCE) for promotion/appointment to the post of Deputy Education Officer. By the impugned common judgment and order, the Tribunal has proceeded to dismiss the Original Applications.

3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that – Petitioners are working on the post of Assistant Teacher in various Primary Schools run and managed by Zilla Parishads. The School Education and Sports Department of the Government of Maharashtra notified the Deputy Education Officer in the Maharashtra Education Service, Group-B (Administrative Branch) (Gazetted) (Recruitment) Rules, 2016 (Recruitment Rules 2016) vide Notification dated July 5, 2016. Under the Recruitment Rules, the post of Deputy Education Officer is to be filled by promotion, LDCE or nomination. The method of LDCE is further bifurcating into two streams viz. persons holding designated posts in Maharashtra Education Services (MES) and persons holding designated posts in District Technical Services (DTS).

4. In pursuance of the Recruitment Rules, a circular was issued by the State Government on May 17, 2017 proposing to fill-up 123 posts of Deputy Education Officer, which were bifurcated into 31 posts allotted for MES stream and 92 pots allotted for DTS stream.

5. By letter dated May 19, 2017 the Directorate of Education clarified that Assistant Teachers working in Primary Schools of Zilla Parishads are not eligible to participate in LDCE 2017. Petitioners applied in pursuance of the circular and it appears that they were issued admission certificates. They accordingly participated in the written examination.

6. Some Primary Teachers working in Zilla Parishad Schools were aggrieved by the clarification issued by Directorate of Education on May 19, 2017 holding them ineligible for LDCE 2017 and filed Original Application No.634 of 2017 before the Tribunal. The Original Application was allowed by judgment and order dated October 4, 2018 holding that since the post of Primary Teacher is a feeder cadre for appointment by transfer to the District Technical Services (Class III) (Educational), Grade-II, it forms a part of DTS. The Tribunal therefore directed that Primary Teachers who are serving in employment of Government of Maharashtra and holding the requisite qualification are declared eligible to participate in LDCE 2017. Later, the words “Primary Teachers who are serving in employment of Government of Maharashtra and” came to be replaced by the words “Applicants”. Thus the benefit of the judgment and order dated October 4, 2018 was restricted to the Applicants therein. The Review Petition filed by the State Government against that judgment and order came to be rejected by order dated February 1, 2019.

7. Petitioners had already participated in their written test of LDCE 2017. On April 1, 2023 Respondents published result of the written test. Cut off marks against various categories for calling the candidates for interview were also declared. Cut off marks in Open General category was declared as 150. It appears that Petitioners secured more than the cut of marks of 150. However, in the list of eligible candidates for appearing in the interview, the names of Petitioners were missing. Since Petitioners were declared ineligible to participate in the further selection process, they approached