IMPORTANT POINT
The principle of seniority in employment must be upheld in decisions regarding surplus declarations, as outlined in the MEPS Rules and relevant Government Resolutions.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J. - Heard learned counsel Shri A.D.Mohgaonkar for the petitioner; learned Assistant Government Pleader Shri N.S.Rao for respondent Nos.1 to 4; learned counsel Shri N.D.Khamborkar for respondent Nos.5 and 6, and Advocate Shri Uday Changle h/f learned counsel Shri Anand Parchure for respondent No.7.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel appearing for parties.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by order passed by the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur dtd. 5/5/2022 declaring him as surplus and protecting respondent No.7 who is junior to him.

4. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 26/6/2010 for teaching subjects Mathematics, Physics, and Chemistry as he holds qualification B.Sc. Mathematics with Physics and Chemistry as well as B.Ed.. The respondent No.5 is Management and runs school namely Adarsh Vidyalaya, Wadala (Paiku). The respondent No.6/school runs Sec. from Std.VIII to X. The appointment of the petitioner was duly approved by the Education Officer in the year 2016. Initially, the school was admitted to 20% grant which was subsequently increased 40%. In the year 2016-17, one post of Assistant Teacher was reduced. It is contended that respondent No.7 Ku.Harsha Bothley was appointed on 12/7/2014 as language teacher as she was holding qualifications B.A. and B.Ed. Thus, respondent No.7 Ku.Harsha is junior most assistant teacher working in the school. The seniority list also shows that respondent No.7 Ku.Harsha is junior to the petitioner. The Management proposed to declare Ku.K.D.Nandurkar as surplus who is senior to respondent No.7 Ku.Harsha as well as the petitioner. On her raising objection to the Education Officer, the education department called upon including the petitioner for hearing. The Education Officer without giving reasons declared the petitioner surplus and, therefore, the petitioner has challenged the order of the Education Officer preferring Writ Petition No.4077/2019. By order dtd. 19/4/2022, this court holding the principle of seniority requires to be observed quashed order dtd. 19/3/2019 declaring the petitioner surplus. This court further directed the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur to take a decision afresh as to who should be declared to be surplus from amongst teachers working on the establishment of respondent Nos.5 and 6 keeping in view the rule of seniority as prescribed under Rule 26(2)(1) of the MEPS Rules in accordance with law within a period of two weeks. This court further directed respondent Nos.5 and 6 to pay salary together with admissible arrears of salary within a period of four weeks from the date of decision from respondent No.3.

5. The petitioner, thereafter, made representations to the Education Officer continuously on 15/10/2019 and 17/10/2019 and also to the Deputy Director of Education on 17/10/2019. Surprisingly, no cognizance was taken either by the Management or the Education Department and, therefore, the petitioner preferred Contempt Petition No.181/2020 as interim order of this court was not obeyed. In the meantime, the writ petition was disposed of and respondent No.3 was directed to take a decision afresh and the parties were directed to appear before respondent No.3 on 25/4/2022.

6. The petitioner, thereafter, gave an application to the Education Officer on 22/4/2022 and brought to the notice of the Education Officer the directions given by this court along with operative part of the judgment. The respondent No.3 vide letter dtd. 2/5/2022 called upon the Management, Shri R.K.Khobragade, the petitioner, respondent No.7 Ku.Harsha Bothley, Ku.K.D.Nandurkar, and the headmaster for hearing on 4/5/2022. The grievance of the petitioner was only with reference to respondent No.7 Ku.Harsha Bothley. However, the Education Officer called other employees also. The matter was heard on 4/5/2022 and nothing was communicated by respondent No.3. Th