The main legal point established is the interpretation of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Services) Rules, 1981, specifically Schedule 'F', to determine seniority based on qualifications and appointment dates.

JUDGMENT

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties heard finally.

2. The challenge in this Petition is to a judgment and order dtd. 21/12/2021, passed by the learned Presiding Officer Additional School Tribunal, Navi Mumbai in Appeal No. 12 of 2020, whereby the Appeal preferred by the respondent No. 1 came to be allowed and the petitioner No. 1 was directed to appoint the respondent No. 1 as a Supervisor in the petitioner No. 2- School with effect from 1/9/2019, in the place of petitioner No. 4.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the background facts leading to this Petition can be stated as under:-

(a) Sahakar Vidya Prasarak Mandal, the petitioner No. 1 is a Trust registered under Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. The petitioner No. 1 runs Sahakar Vidya Prasarak Mandal's Secondary School at Kalwa, Dist. Thane, the petitioner No. 2, a Government recognized Secondary School.

(b) The respondent No. 1 was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the petitioner No. 2- School on 26/8/1987. The respondent No. 1 then had S.C.C., D.Ed. qualification. The petitioner No. 3 was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 11/6/1990. The petitioner No. 3 was then having qualification of B.A, B.Ed. The petitioner No. 3, thus, entered Category "C" under the guidelines for fixation of seniority of teachers in the Secondary Schools (Schedule 'F') appended to the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Services) Rules, 1981 ("the Rules, 1981"). The petitioner No. 4, who was having the qualification of B.SC. B.Ed and was appointed as Trained Graduate Teacher on 19/6/1991. The petitioner No. 4 was also placed in Category "C" on the date of appointment. The petitioner No. 5, who was B.A. B.Ed joined the petitioner No. 2- School as an Assistant Teacher on 14/6/1993, and was also placed in Category "C".

(c) In contrast, the respondent No. 1 acquired the qualification of B.A. in 1990 and B.Ed in April, 1996, and thereby became a Trained Graduate Teacher and thus entered Category "C" in the year 1996. Upto that point the respondent No. 1 was, according to the petitioners, in Category "D" comprising of Trained Undergraduate Teachers.

4. The above being the position, according to petitioners, the petitioner Nos. 3 to 5 were shown senior to the respondent No. 1 in the seniority list maintained by the petitioner No. 1.

5. On 1/6/2015, Mr. Pravin Patil, who was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 12/6/1989, with qualification of B.A., B.Ed on the date of appointment itself, came to be promoted as Supervisor. Respondent No. 1 filed an Appeal being Appeal No. 56 of 2015, assailing the order of promotion of Mr. Patil, before the learned Presiding Officer, Additional School Tribunal claiming seniority over Mr. Patil on the ground he was appointed as an Assistant Teacher much prior to Mr. Patil i.e. on 15/6/1987.

6. By a judgment and order dtd. 24/6/2016, the learned Presiding Officer, Additional School Tribunal dismissed the Appeal recording a categorical finding that Mr. Patil was senior to respondent No. 1 as he entered Category "C" on the date of appointment itself, whereas the respondent No. 1 was rightly placed in Category "D" of Schedule 'F'. The said order attained finality.

7. On 1/9/2019, the petitioner No. 3, who was then working as a Supervisor came to be promoted to the post of Head Master. Whereas the petitioner No. 4, who was next in the line of seniority, was promoted to the post of Supervisor. Education Officer - respondent No. 2 gave approval to the promotions.

8. Respondent No. 1 preferred an Appeal being Appeal No. 12 of 2020, before the School Tribunal asserting, inter alia, that he had acquired qualification of B.A. prior in point of time to the appointment of petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 and, therefore, was senior to petitioner Nos. 3 and 4. The Appeal was resisted by the petitioners as well as respondent No. 2- Education Officer.

9. By the impugned order dtd. 21/12/2021, the learned Presid