2014 (8) TMI 1210 - SC - Indian Laws

Seniority of the Appellant vis- -vis Respondent No. 4 - Treatment in the category of 'Trained Graduate Teachers' on being B. Ed. degree (to respondent no. 4) - Appellant had joined the said school as Assistant Teacher before Respondent No. 4 and was senior to him in the post of Assistant Teacher - whether it is the Appellant who is senior to Respondent No. 4 or it is Respondent No. 4 who is senior to the Appellant? HELD THAT - The position which emerges is that for appointment of a Primary Teacher, the qualification that is stipulated in Schedule-B is that he or she should have passed S.S.C. examination or matriculation examination or lokshala examination or any other examination recognised as such by Government and the Primary Teachers Certificate examination or Diploma in Education examination, or a Diploma in Education (per-primary of two years' duration). Thus, among various alternate qualifications which are prescribed for appointment to the post of Primary School Teachers, one of the prescribed qualification is Diploma in Education Examination (D. Ed.). Therefore, a person holding this qualification would be treated as satisfying the qualification stipulated in Rule 6. As a consequence, he would be treated as 'Trained Graduate', as defined in Rule 2(1)(j), which means a person possessing the qualifications mentioned in Sub-clauses (i) to (vi) of Clause (1) of item II in Schedule B . The Appellant was having the requisite minimum qualification for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in the Primary School and it was not a case of appointment of an unqualified teacher when the Appellant was appointed to the said post on 24.08.1979 - In the present case, when it is found that the Appellant was qualified to be appointed as Assistant Teacher in Primary School on the date of his appointment, acquisition of higher qualification at a later date, even when such a higher qualification is requisite qualification for the higher post, will not be determinative for fixing the seniority. In the case at hand there is a specific Rule, namely, Rule 12 of the Rules, which deals with seniority. The clear and unambiguous criteria for determining seniority is the continuous officiation counted from the date of acquiring the educational qualification as prescribed under Schedule B . It is stated at the cost of repetition that since the Appellant was holding the requisite qualifications, i.e. D. Ed., for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary School, as prescribed under Schedule B to the Rules, her seniority was to be counted on the basis of continuous officiation. Since she joined the post of Assistant Teacher on 24.08.1979 and Respondent No. 4 came to be appointed subsequently, i.e. on 01.09.1980. The Appellant would naturally be senior to Respondent No. 4. A direction is issued to appoint the Appellant as Head of the School by replacing Respondent No. 4 therefrom - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Determination of seniority between the Appellant and Respondent No. 4.
2. Validity of the seniority list prepared by the School authorities.
3. Legitimacy of the promotion of Respondent No. 4 to the post of Headmaster.
4. Interpretation and application of relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, and the Rules framed thereunder.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Determination of Seniority:

The primary issue in this case is the determination of seniority between the Appellant and Respondent No. 4. The Appellant joined the school as an Assistant Teacher on 24.08.1979, while Respondent No. 4 joined on 01.09.1980. The Appellant acquired her B. Ed. degree on 20.05.1986, whereas Respondent No. 4 obtained his B. Ed. degree earlier, on 01.11.1984. The School Tribunal and the High Court held that seniority is to be considered from the date of acquisition of the B. Ed. qualification, thus treating Respondent No. 4 as senior.

2. Validity of the Seniority List:

A seniority list was circulated by the School authorities showing the Appellant as junior to Respondent No. 4. The Appellant filed objections, claiming seniority based on her earlier joining date as an Assistant Teacher. However, these objections did not yield any result. The School Tribunal and the High Court upheld the seniority list based on the earlier acquisition of the B. Ed. degree by Respondent No. 4.

3. Legitimacy of the Promotion of Respondent No. 4:

The Appellant claimed promotion to the post of Headmistress upon the retirement of the then Headmaster on 31.12.2009. Despite her claim, the School Management appointed Respondent No. 4 as the Headmaster on 29.12.2009. The Appellant's appeal to the School Tribunal and subsequent writ petition to the High Court were dismissed, leading her to approach the Supreme Court.

4. Interpretation and Application of Relevant Provisions:

The Supreme Court examined the relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, and the Rules framed thereunder. The Court noted that the Appellant was qualified for the post of Assistant Teacher at the time of her appointment, holding a Diploma in Education (D. Ed.), which is a recognized qualification under Schedule-B of the Rules. The Court emphasized that acquisition of higher qualifications (B. Ed.) at a later date should not affect the seniority if the Appellant was already qualified for the initial post.

The Court referred to Rule 12 of the Rules, which deals with seniority, stating that seniority should be based on continuous officiation from the date of acquiring the prescribed educational qualification. Since the Appellant was qualified and appointed as an Assistant Teacher before Respondent No. 4, her seniority should be counted from her joining date.

The Court also distinguished the present case from the Full Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in Shri Vaijanath S/o. Tatyarao Shinde v. The Secretary, Marathwada Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, which was relied upon by the School Tribunal and the High Court. The Court clarified that the judgment in Shri Vaijanath was not applicable as the Appellant was already qualified at the time of her appointment, unlike the petitioner in Shri Vaijanath who acquired the necessary qualification later.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the High Court. The Court directed the appointment of the Appellant as the Head of the School, replacing Respondent No. 4, within four weeks. The Court held that the Appellant was the rightful claimant to the post of Headmistress based on her seniority and qualifications, and the appointment of Respondent No. 4 was erroneous and infringed upon the Appellant's rights. No order as to costs was made since the Respondents did not appear.