The court determined that seniority in 'C' category should be assigned from the date of obtaining relevant qualifications, not the initial appointment date.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

1. By this Petition, the Petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 30 August 2018 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Mumbai dismissing Appeal no. 28 of 2017 preferred by the Petitioner. In his Appeal, the Petitioner had questioned inter alia his supersession by Respondent no.3 on 1 July 2017. Incidentally, the Petitioner also raised the issue of fixation of seniority in Category ‘C’ teachers for the secondary school. First Respondent is an Educational Society which has established a prestigious school named Balmohan Vidya Mandir which runs both primary as well as secondary schools. In addition to School at Dadar, Mumbai it appears that the first Respondent-Society also runs another school at Talegaon. The Petitioner joined the services of the Respondent-School on 15 November 1990. At the time of his appointment in the Respondent-School, Petitioner held the qualification of SSC (1987) and D.Ed. (2 years) (1989). Petitioner bettered his qualifications after appointment and acquired the degree of Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) on 18 July 1992. He further bettered his qualifications and acquired the degree of Bachelor of Education (B.Ed) on 3 June 1998. The Respondent-Management prepared seniority list of ‘C’ category teachers in the secondary school. Petitioner objected to the said seniority in which he was treated to have entered in ‘C’ category on 3 June 1998 after acquisition of qualification of B.Ed. Petitioner contended that he ought to have entered in ‘C’ category on acquisition of qualification of B.A. on 18 July 1992. The Education Officer repelled the objection raised by the Petitioner by order dated 9 May 2017 and held that the seniority list prepared by the School-Management was in order.

2. Based on the seniority list so prepared, Respondent No.3 was promoted to the post of Headmaster in one of the Schools on 1 July 2017. Aggrieved by his supersession, the Petitioner approached the School Tribunal by filing Appeal No. 28 of 2017, and by the impugned judgment and order dated 30 August 2018, the Tribunal has proceeded to dismiss the Appeal.

3. Mr. Malvankar, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner would submit that under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation act, 1977, a teacher can raise the issue of seniority while challenging his supersession. He would submit that notwithstanding the order of the Education Officer dated 9 May 2017, the Petitioner was entitled to raise the issue of seniority in the School Tribunal in his challenge to the supersession order. In support, he would rely upon judgment of this Court in Sayyad Yousuf s/o Sayyad Moosa vs. State of Maharashtra , 2017 (2) Mh.L.J. 472 . Even otherwise, Mr. Malvankar would submit that the School Tribunal has not closed the doors on the Petitioner on the basis of Education Officer’s order dated 9 May 2017 and has considered his grievance relating to seniority on merits. He would submit that the decision of the School Tribunal for grant of seniority to the Petitioner in Category ‘C’ is in the teeth of judgment of this Court in Sahakar Vidya Prasarak Mandal and Ors. vs. Dinesh Karbhari Kute and Ors. Writ Petition No. 1221 of 2022 decided on 11 March 2023. He would submit that in that judgment, this Court has held that a secondary teacher possessing the qualification of D.Ed. (2 years) as per Note-2 to Schedule-F enters ‘C’ category upon acquisition of qualification of B.A. He would therefore submit that upon clearing the qualification of B.A. on 18 July 1992, the petitioner would necessarily be entitled to seniority in ‘C’ category as held by the Division