School Tribunal under Section 9 of MEPS Act lacks jurisdiction over disputes solely for higher pay scale on acquiring qualifications during service, as it neither constitutes reduction in rank nor supersession in promotion.

JUDGMENT :

AMIT BORKAR, J.

1. By the present writ petition instituted under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner calls in question the legality and correctness of the Judgment and Order dated 20 November 2007 delivered by the School Tribunal in Appeal No. 106 of 2003. The supervisory and writ jurisdiction of this Court is invoked on the ground that the findings recorded by the Tribunal suffer from errors apparent on the face of the record and warrant judicial scrutiny.

2. The factual backdrop giving rise to the present proceedings may be stated thus. The petitioner came to be appointed as a Teacher in respondent No. 1 primary school on 13 June 1986. At the time of her initial appointment, she possessed the qualification of S.S.C. and D.Ed. Subsequently, in April 1991, the petitioner acquired the degree of Bachelor of Arts. Respondent No. 5 entered service in the same primary school on 21 November 1994, holding the qualifications of B.A. and B.Ed. from the inception of her appointment. These foundational facts are not in dispute.

3. On 12 January 1999, respondent No. 5 instituted Writ Petition No. 3824 of 1999 before this Court seeking placement in a higher pay scale. The petitioner herein was not impleaded as a party to the said writ petition. This Court allowed the writ petition and directed that respondent No. 5 be placed in the pay scale of Rs. 975 to 1,660 with effect from January 1996, accepting her contention that she was the only trained teacher in the respondent school at the relevant time. The order thus attained finality insofar as respondent No. 5 was concerned.

4. Thereafter, on 31 October 2003, the petitioner preferred Appeal No. 106 of 2003 before the School Tribunal asserting her entitlement to the graduate pay scale and seeking a direction to the respondent Management to grant her such pay scale. In the memorandum of appeal, it was specifically pleaded that the seniority list maintained by the Management placed the petitioner at Serial No. 4, whereas respondent No. 5 was shown at Serial No. 9. The petitioner raised a grievance that despite having acquired a graduate qualification in the year 1991, she was not treated as a trained graduate teacher, whereas teachers junior to her were extended the benefit of the graduate pay scale. The appeal thus rested upon the twin foundations of seniority and qualification.

5. Respondent No. 5 resisted the appeal by contending, at the threshold, that the same was not maintainable under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, as the dispute did not relate to termination, dismissal, removal, reduction in rank, or supersession. It was urged that respondent No. 5 possessed the qualifications of B.A. and B.Ed. on the date of her appointment and was, therefore, rightly treated as a trained graduate from inception. It was further contended that in Writ Petition No. 3824 of 1999, this Court had set aside the order of the Director of Education and the Educational Officer which had reduced her pay scale from Rs. 1,400 to 2,600 to that of an untrained graduate teacher in the scale of Rs. 975 to 1,600. In view of the said adjudication, it was submitted that the petitioner was not entitled to reopen or indirectly challenge the position crystallised by the ea