SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Bom) 127

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
NITIN W. SAMBRE, VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ
Jayant Shikshan Sanstha, Amgaon (Railway), Tahsil Amgaon, District Gondia - Appellant
Versus
The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Gondia - Respondent
WP/194/2025
Decided On : 20-01-2025

Advocates Appeared:
Shri A.Z. Jibhkate, Counsel for the petitioners.
Mrs. Kavita Bhondge, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent no.1.

Seniority by age is determinative for promotion under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Rules, and additional qualifications can be acquired post-promotion.

Headnote:

(A) Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Act, 1977 - Rules of 1981 - Seniority of teachers - The petitioners challenged the rejection of approval for the appointment of the petitioner no.2 as Headmaster, asserting superior qualifications and seniority. The Education Officer upheld the seniority of the respondent no.2 based on age, as per Rule 12 and Schedule-F of the Rules of 1981. (Paras 2, 4, 9, 12)

(B) Qualifications for Headmaster - The court clarified that the requirement for a Diploma in School Management is not mandatory prior to promotion, and can be acquired within five years. (Paras 10, 11)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner no.1 is a registered Society managing a school, seeking to promote petitioner no.2 over respondent no.2, who is senior by age. The proposal for promotion was rejected by the Education Officer.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the Education Officer's decision was justified based on the seniority by age and qualifications as per the applicable rules.

Issues: The main issues were the validity of the seniority list and the interpretation of qualifications for the Headmaster position.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that seniority by age is determinative under the Rules of 1981, and the additional qualification of Diploma in School Management does not disqualify the respondent no.2.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

NITIN W. SAMBRE, J..

RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms Kavita Bhondge waives notice of hearing for the respondent no.1. In view of the order proposed to be passed, service on the respondent no.2 is dispensed with.

Heard finally with consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the orders dated November 25, 2024 and December 27, 2024 passed by the respondent no.1-Education Officer whereby the proposal forwarded by the petitioner no.1-Jayant Shikshan Sanstha (for short, ‘the Society’) for grant of approval to the appointment of the petitioner no.2 on the post of Headmaster came to be rejected. By this petition, the petitioners are claiming directions against the respondent no.1-Education Officer to accord approval to the appointment of the petitioner no.2 as Headmaster with effect from November 01, 2024.

3. The facts, which are necessary for deciding the present writ petition, are as under:-

The petitioner no.1 is a registered Society and public trust which is managing the Panchsheel High School, Science and Arts Junior College in Tahsil Salekasa, District Gondia. The petitioner no.2 and the respondent no.2 were appointed as Assistant Teachers on June 01, 1995. The petitioner no.2 is holding academic qualification of B.Sc., B.Ed., whereas the respondent no.2 possesses qualification of B.A., B.Ed. The respondent no.2 is due for superannuation on January 31, 2026, whereas the petitioner no.2 is due to retire on March 31, 2026.

The post of the Headmaster fell vacant in the school upon superannuation of Shri R.M. Muneshwar, the then Headmaster and accordingly the Society passed a resolution in the meeting of the Managing Committee held on October 30, 2024 thereby resolving that the petitioner no.2 can be promoted to the post of Headmaster of Panchsheel High School, Science and Arts Junior College. Said resolution speaks of qualification of‘ Diploma in School Management’ conducted by Yashwantrao Chavan Open University to be mandatory as per the Government Resolution dated June 13, 2005 and as such, the Society recommended the name of the petitioner no.2 for being appointed as Headmaster of the said school. Accordingly, the appointment order came to be issued to the petitioner no.2 based on which a proposal was submitted for grant of approval to the said promotion on November 04, 2024. Said proposal came to be rejected vide impugned order dated November 25, 2024 so also the revised proposal was rejected on December 27, 2024. As such, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition.

4. Shri A.Z. Jibhkate, learned counsel for the petitioners would urge that the petitioner no.2 is senior to the respondent no.2 though they are appointed on the very same date as could be inferred from the seniority list which is produced on record. The petitioner no.2, holds qualification of B.Sc., B.Ed., which is considered to be higher to that of the respondent no.2, who holds qualification of B.A., B.Ed. He would invite our attention to the Government Resolution dated June 13, 2005 so as to claim that the petitioner no.2 holds additional qualification of Diploma in School Management conducted by Yashwantrao Chavan Open University and in such an eventuality the petitioner no.2 has to be held as more qualified than the respondent no.2. So as to substantiate the said contention, he would draw support from the Government Resolution dated June 13, 2005 which is produced on record at Page 73. He would further claim that this Court is required to be sensitive to the fact that even if promotion is granted to the respondent no.2, who is not holding the prescribed qualification as per the Government Resolution dated June 13, 2005, he would not be able to acquire such qualification before his retirement. The counsel for the petitioner would invite our attention to the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top