The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of training qualifications and the requirement of 10 years post training service for promotion under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981.

B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

By this writ petition, the petitioner questions the judgment of School Tribunal dated 27.08.2008 by which appeal filed by him vide Appeal No. 29 of 2008 came to be dismissed and Appeal No. 46 of 2008 filed by Respondent No. 3 came to be allowed. The dispute pertains to determination of seniority inter se between the petitioner and Respondent No.3.

2. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Assistant Teacher on 01.09.1982 and at that time his qualifications were S.S.C. D.Ed. (2 years course). He improved his qualification and obtained Graduation B.A. on 14.01.1985. He improved his training qualification and obtained B.Ed. Degree in 1987. As against this, Respondent No. 3 joined same school on 10.10.1985 and at that time he was B.Sc., M.Sc. & B.Ed.

3. The petitioner was working as Assistant Head Master and by order dated 08.05.2008, he was sought to be reverted as a Assistant Teacher. He challenged that reversion in Appeal No. 29 of 2008. Respondent No. 3 filed Appeal No. 46 of 2008 questioning the promotion given to the petitioner on 17.03.2008 as Assistant Head Master. School Tribunal in impugned judgment has found that Respondent No. 3 who was Graduate with B.Ed. qualification at the time of his recruitment on 10.10.1985 senior to the petitioner who obtained B.Ed. in 1987.If qualification of B.Ed. is ignored, then in order to come in category “C” of Schedule – F of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, the petitioner has to put in 10 years of service after 01.09.1982. Thus after such 10 years post D.Ed. service he enters the zone of consideration for promotion.

4. Shri Adbe, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no need of putting such 10 years service as D.Ed. qualification obtained by the petitioner after S.S.C. is of 2 years duration and hence the petitioner needs to be treated as possessing necessary training qualification from 01.09.1982 itself. He obtained Graduate degree on 14.01.1985 and, therefore, since that date he must be treated as trained Graduate, hence, the petitioner is senior to Respondent No. 3. His contention is, the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pandurang Atmaramji vs. State of Maharashtra, reported at 1997 (3) Mh. L.J. 578 does not lay down any law in this respect and one stray observation appearing in para 14 thereof has been mechanically acted upon by other Hon. Benches. He, therefore, states that other Division Bench judgments in the case of Pramod vs. State of Maharashtra, reported at 2006 (5) Mh.L.J. 110; Bhagwat vs. Education Officer (Secondary) Z.P., reported at 2007 (6) Mh. L.J. 415 and Ashok Sathe vs. Education Officer (Secondary), Z.P., 2007 (4) Mh. L.J. 358 also does not lay down any law in this regard.

5. He has invited attention to the fact that on 01.03.2006, the management published seniority list in which name of the petitioner appeared at Sr. No. 11 and name of Respondent No. 3 was shown at Sr. No. 5. The petitioner raised objection and in later seniority list published on 15.03.2007, name of the petitioner was mentioned at Sr. No. 1 while name of Respondent No. 3 appeared at Sr. No. 2.

6. In this background, he has invited attention to Government Resolution dated 30.05.1968 to urge that the qualifications like S.T.C., T.D or Dip. T. (1 year), Dip. Ed. (1 year) which could be obtained after S.S.C. have been continued to be recognized as training qualifications till 01.06.1970 only and not thereafter. By subsequent Notification dated 01.10.1970 such teachers recruited prior to 30.09.1970 were given protection and they could not be regarded as untrained. He has also invited attention to later Notification dated 13.09.1971 to show that said Notification clearly stipulated that the course which required period of two years after S.S.C. does not come within the purview of D.O. letter dated 30.05.1968 and 21.06.1969. It is his contention that Diploma in Education cour