Bombay High Court
Shri Vivek S/O Gajiram Kadgaye And ... vs The Education Officer And Others on 17 July, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1998(2)BOMCR534
Author: B.H. Marlapalle
Bench: V.S. Sirpurkar, B.H. Marlapalle
ORDER B.H. Marlapalle, J.
1. Head the learned Counsel for the respective parties. As both the petitions involve common facts and also points to be decided, they are heard and decided together.
2. Writ Petition No. 1201/96 has been filed by one Shri Pandurang s/o Atmaramji Tijare, who is Assistant Teacher in respondent No. 3 School along with respondent No. 4 who has filed Writ Petition No 971/97. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1201/96 Shri Tijare passed his D.Ed. examination in 1970 and came to be appointed as Assistant Teacher with the respondent No. 3 School with effect from 1-7-1970. While he was so working, he passed his B.A. examination in 1974 and by Resolution dated 3-8-1977 passed by the respondent No. 3 School, he came to be granted pay-scale of High School Teacher. He subsequently passed his B.Ed. examination in 1984. As against this petitioner in Writ Petition No. 971/97 Shri V.G. Kadgaye has passed his B.Ed. examination in 1983 and came to be appointed as Assistant Teacher on temporary basis from 11-8-1983 till 30-4-1984. He was issued a fresh appointment order on probation for a period of two years sometimes in August 1984 and accordingly he came to be confirmed as Assistant Teacher on or about 22-8-1986. The respondent No. 3 School Published a seniority list in 1987 and in Category 'C', Shri Tijare was shown at Serial No. 6 whereas Shri Kadgaye was shown at Serial No. 9. The said list was reportedly circulated amongst all teachers and no dispute of whatever nature was raised by any teacher and accordingly the seniority list was deemed to be finalised. It is further contended by Shri Kadgaye that in the years 1992, 1993 and 1994, the respondent No. 3 published a seniority list wherein he was shown senior to Shri Tijare. Howeve., the said lists as alleged by Shri Kadgaye are not on record. Admittedly on 1-7-1995, the respondent No. 3 School published a fresh seniority list and it was signed by all the concerned teachers on its circulation. The said list was finalised on 7-8-1995 and in Category 'C' of the said list, Shri Tijare was shown at Serial No. 6, whereas Shri Kadgaye was shown at Serial No. 9. It is contended by Shri Tijare that the said list was circulated amongst all the teachers and no one has taken any objection and, therefore, the said list was deemed to be a final seniority list as on 7-8-1995.
3. Based on the seniority list published in August 1995, it appears that respondent No. 4 Shri Kadgaye was shown as a surplus Teacher to be absorbed in another School and the Education Officer, Nagpur District vide his order dated 10-1-1996 directed the said respondent No. 4 to be absorbed in one of the Schools by name, Late Shyamkant Kadu High School, Masod, Post : Masod, Tahsil Katol, District : Nagpur. The respondent No. 3 issued relieving order on 27-1-1996 and respondent No. 4 came to be relieved to join in the new School. Both these orders, namely, orders dated 10-1-1996 and 27-1-1996 came to be challenged by respondent No. 4 Shri Kadgaye in Writ Petition No. 268/96 in which present petitioner Shri Tijare was also arrayed as a necessary respondent amongst others, However, it appears from the records that notice was issued in the said writ petition only to Education Officer and on receipt of the said notice, the Education Officer filed a reply and contended that order dated 10-1-1996 was issued on erroneous presumption and both the orders impugned were directed to be withdrawn by him. It was under these circumstances that Writ Petition No. 268/96 came to be disposed of by this Court by order dated 26-2-1996.
4. While Writ Petition No. 268/96 was filed and pending before this Court, respondent No. 4 Shri Kadgaye had already joined at the new School, namely, Late Shyamkant Kadu High School, Masod, Post : Masod, Tahsil : Katol, District : Nagpur and he continued to be in the said School even when the petition was disposed of by this Court. Consequent to the order dated 26-2-1996 passed by this Court, the Education Officer issued notice dated 28-3-1996 addressed to the respondent No. 3 fixing hearing in respect of declaration of excess Teacher and a copy of the said notice was addressed to both of them, i.e. Shri Tijare and Shri Kadgaye. It is the contention of Shri Tijare that he did not receive a copy of the said notice and he got the knowledge of hearing fixed by the Education Officer through some other source and accordingly he appeared before the Education Officer on 17-4-1996 and filed his detailed say A copy of the same has been brought on record. It is the further contention of petitioner Shri Tijare that when he appeared before the Education Officer on 17-4-1996, he was not given any hearing and on the contrary, Education Officer handed over to him a copy of his order dated 16-4-1996 wherein it was stated that the order issued by the Education Officer declaring Shri Kadgaye as surplus was cancelled and new School, i.e. Late Shyamkant Kadu High School, Masod was called upon to relieve Shri Kadgaye if he had already joined the said School and a compliance report was required to be submitted to the Education Officer. A copy of the said order dated 16-4-1996 has already been brought on record and it appears from the said copy that it was passed on 16-4-1996 while notice was issued to all the concerned parties to appear before the Education Officer on 17-4-1996 for hearing in the matter of deciding excess teachers in the respondent No. 3 School. On 17-4-1996, Education Officer passed another order referring to the complaint of Shri Tijare and held that the claim of Shri Tijare in respect of his seniority was not correct. A bare reading of the orders dated 16-4-1996 and 17-4-1996 passed by the Education Officer clearly indicates that they are cryptic orders without giving any reason in support of the findings given by the Education Officer. The Education Officer issued another order dated 7-5-1996 declaring Shri Tijare as a surplus teacher and he was directed to be absorbed in another School by 15-5-1996. It was under these circumstances, Shri Tijare filed Writ Petition No. 1201/96 and impugned both the orders passed by the Education Officer namely, orders dated 16-4-1996 and 7-5-1996, whereas Writ Petition No. 971/97 filed by Shri Kadgaye prays for directions against the Education Officer as well as the original School, namely, Vishwavyapi Shaikshanik Sanstha, Weltur to allow him to re-join consequent to the order passed by the Education Officer on 16-4-1996.
5. In Writ Petition No. 1201/96, interim order of status quo was passed while admitting the said petition by this Court and subsequently, the interim order of status quo came to be vacated by another order dated 6-11-1996. The application for restoration of the status quo order filed by the petitioner in that petition is on record white in Writ Petition No. 971/97, only notice before admission was issued.
6. In Writ Petition No. 1201/96, respondent No. 3 School Management has appeared and filed its Return in which petition has been supported in to and it has been further emphatically averred that Shri Tijare was promoted as Assistant Teacher in the Secondary School by Resolution dated 3-8-1977 and he worked in that capacity continuously. The respondent No. 3 has further emphasised correctness of seniority list finalised on 7-8-1995 and averred that there was no objection received from any one against the said seniority list including respondent No. 4 Shri Kadgaye. Shri Kadgaye, respondent No. 4 in Writ Petition No. 1201/96 and petitioner in Writ Petition No. 971/97, has filed his reply and has not brought anything on record to show that he had taken objections to the seniority list circulated in July/August 1995 by the respondent No. 3. However, his detailed reply opposing Writ Petition No. 1201/96 avers that the School Management and the Education Officer were in collusion with each other and the Education Officer had not approved the seniority list circulated in July/August 1995 and that the original order dated 10-1-1996 declaring him as surplus was grossly erroneous. The return of respondent No. 4 further emphasises the allegation that in the seniority list published by the respondent No. 3 in the years 1992, 1993 and 1994 petitioner Shri Tijare was shown as junior to respondent No. 4 and the said position was never disputed. It is further admitted that the respondent No. 4 continued to work in the new School even on the date when the return was filed by him while the petitioner continued to work at the old School, i.e. School run by the respondent No. 3. It is further contended by respondent No. 4 that petitioner Shri Tijare was paid salary payable to the High School Teacher under the 25% quota available to the Middle School Teachers and Shri Tijare in fact continued to be a Middle School Teacher and he was never appointed as an Assistant Teacher for the Secondary School. The respondent No. 4 further alleged that taking advantage of the disputed seniority so as to safeguard interest of the petitioner, the respondent Management and the Head Master of the School submitted faulty proposal for declaring respondent No. 4 as excess Teacher to respondent No. 2 Education Officer, who passed order dated 10-1-1996 without considering the factual position and extending an opportunity to the respondent No. 4 and he joined the new School reserving his rights during the pendency of Writ Petition No. 268/96. It is further submitted by respondent No. 4 Shri Kadgaye that petitioner Shri Tijare came in the cadre of High School Teacher only in the year 1984 when he acquired B.Ed. qualification and the seniority of Shri Tijare is required to be counted from the date of his acquiring B.Ed. qualification as per Schedule 'F' Note No. 3 of the Secondary School Code. Finally the respondent No. 4 supported the order dated 16-4-1996 passed by the Education Officer.
7. To decide both these petitions, the only issue, which is required to be examined, is whether the seniority list published/circulated by the Management in July/August 1995 is correct and legal. There is no dispute regarding dates of joining and acquiring qualifications by the petitioner as well as respondent No. 4.
8. The learned Counsel appearing for petitioner Shri Tijare has submitted that in Writ Petition No. 268/96 no notice was issued to Shri Tijare and petition came to be disposed of by this Court by order dated 26-2-1996 without hearing Shri Tijare. The learned Counsel, therefore, submits that no reliance can be placed on the order passed by this Court on 26-2-1996 to draw conclusion against the present petitioner. A copy of the order dated 26-2-1996 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 268/96 has been placed on record and though it appears that the present petitioner was arrayed as one of the respondents, in the order it is clearly mentioned that respondent Nos. 2 to 6 were allowed to be deleted. This clearly indicates that no notice was issued to respondent Nos. 2 to 6 and consequently no hearing was given to them because they were allowed to be deleted. This petition has been disposed of solely by taking into consideration the affidavit in reply filed by the Education Officer stating that the original order dated 10-1-1996 declaring respondent No. 4 as surplus was passed on erroneous presumptions. The relevant observations of this Court in the order dated 26-2-1996 are reproduced as under :
"According to the Education Officer, the seniority list prepared by the Management for the year 1995-96 is not an approved seniority list, that the Management due to the reduction of the Division of Standard VIIIth of the High School, submitted a proposal of retrenchment and absorption of the petitioner under the provisions of Rule 26 of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Condition of Service) Rules, 1981, for the academic session 1995-96 and it is solely on the said proposal, the Education Officer issued the impugned order for absorption of the petitioner in other school. The Education Officer has asserted that on verification of record the Education Officer has come to a conclusion that the petitioner is not liable to be declared surplus and on the contrary some one else who is in fact junior to the petitioner ought to have proposed for reinstatement. It is expressly stated in the affidavit that the Education Officer is cancelling the impugned order declaring the petitioner as surplus from the School and the Education Officer will absorb the junior most teacher instead of the petitioner.
In view of the aforesaid categorical statement by the Education Officer that he is cancelling the absorption of the petitioner, the grievance in the petition is redressed by the Education Officer himself and no further orders are necessary. The petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no orders as to costs."
9. A perusal of the above order goes to show that the present petitioner Shri Tijare was not heard, the issue of inter se seniority between himself and respondent No. 4 Shri Kadgye was not finally adjudicated upon either way and Writ Petition No. 268/96 was merely disposed of solely relying upon the reply field by the Education Officer. The present petitioner's contention that order of this Court could not be relied upon by the Education Officer to finally decide the issue of inter se seniority is, therefore, of substance. On the other hand, the notice issued by the Education Officer on 28-3-1996 regarding hearing fixed to decide the issue of surplus teachers in the respondent No. 3 School pre-supposes that Shri Kadgaye was not an excess teacher. The relevant contents of the said notice read as under :
"As per the above referred writ petition, as Shri Kadgaye is not excess Teacher, the hearing has been fixed on 10-4-1996."
The Education Officer has thus proceeded on totally erroneous presumptions and instead of adjudicating the issue of inter se seniority between petitioner and respondent No. 4 on merits, he has passed an innocuous order of just one line without discussing the facts as well as merit while drawing a conclusion that his earlier order declaring Shri Kadgaye as surplus was erroneous and that the seniority list published by the Management in July/August 1995 was defective. It is under these circumstances that we are required to look into the merits of the respective contentions of both petitioner as well as respondent No. 4 to decide the issue of their inter se seniority and it is implied that junior teacher amongst them will be inevitably a surplus teacher.
10. It is not disputed that both petitioner as well as respondent No. 4 are trained teachers and the Management had published a seniority list in 1987 itself. It is also admitted that prior to enactment of Maharashtra Employees or Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, the service conditions of teachers in the private schools in Vidarbha region were covered by the Secondary Schools Code. The provisions for determination of qualifications, pay-scales and seniority of the School Teachers were also incorporated in the Secondary Schools Code and they are almost materially similar to the provisions incorporated under the Act of 1977 as well as Rules framed in 1981. For sometime, the petitioner was governed under the Secondary Schools Code, whereas respondent No. 4 has been governed under the Rules of 1981 right from his initial appointment. However, to decide the inter se seniority between these two teachers, it is suffice to examine their respective claims taking into consideration the provision of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and the Rules framed thereunder, namely, 1981 Rules. Rule 2(1)(j) of 1981 Rules reads as under :
" 'trained graduate' means a person possessing the qualifications mentioned in sub-section (I) to (vi) of clause (1) of Item II in the Schedule 'B'".
Rule 6 of the 1981 Rules lays down qualifications of teachers and it states that the minimum qualifications for the posts of teachers and the non-teaching staff in the Primary Schools, secondary Schools, Junior Colleges and Junior Colleges of Education shall be as specified in Schedule "B". In Clause II of Schedule "B" qualifications for trained teachers in Secondary Schools and Junior Colleges of Education have been set out. Sub-clause (1) deals with qualifications for Graduate Teachers and in that sub-para (N) reads as under :
"(i) .....
(ii) A Teaching Diploma of any statutory University, if a person holding it is appointed for the first time before 1st October 1970 and continues to serve as a Teacher with or without break after that date.
(iii) ....."
11. The provisions as set out hereinabove show that a Graduate Teacher holding teaching diploma of any statutory University appointed for the first time before 1st October 1970 and who continues to serve as a teacher with or without any break after that date, is qualified to be a trained teacher in the Secondary School and is called a Graduate Teacher. Admittedly, the petitioner in instant case has joined on 1st July 1970 and the provisions of Schedule "B" as incorporated by the amendment effective from 22-10-1984 clearly satisfy in his case to hold that he is a trained teacher in a Secondary School because he is a Graduate with Diploma in Education and has been appointed prior to 1st October 1970 and has continued to serve as a teacher without any break in the respondent No. 3 School right from his initial appointment. It appears from the affidavit filed by the respondent No. 4 that his one of the main contentions is that the petitioner was not qualified to be a trained Graduate Teacher in the Secondary School till he passed his degree in Bachelor of Education in 1984. It is clear that this contention on the part of the respondent No. 4 is erroneous in view of the provisions as quoted hereinabove and which have been incorporated in 1984 in the Rules of 1981. Though respondent No. 4 has contended that the petitioner was never appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the Higher Secondary School by the respondent No. 3 and the petitioner has never worked as such, the emphatic averments of the petitioner that by a specific Resolution dated 3-8-1977 he was promoted as an Assistant Teacher in the High School have been duly supported by the respondent No. 3 by a written reply and there is no document on record to prove contra, as alleged by the respondent No. 4. In view of this unchallenged factual position and the provisions of Rule 2(i)(j) and Rule 6 read with the provisions of Schedule "B" as quoted hereinabove, it is clear that the petitioner was qualified to be a trained Secondary School Teacher prior to his passing B.Ed. examination and prior to confirmation of the respondent No. 4. The respondent No. 4 does not dispute that he came to be confirmed in the employment of respondent No. 3 on or about 22.8.1986, prior to which date the petitioner was already appointed and confirmed as a trained Secondary School Teacher.
12. The principle of continuous officiation also goes in favour of the present petitioner Shri Tijare in as much as he came to be appointed as a High School Teacher in August 1977 itself and he continued to be working in that capacity even prior to his acquiring B.Ed. qualification. In the Rules of 1981, the pay-scales applicable to the High School Teachers, who are Graduates with Diploma in Education/ Teaching, are the same as those applicable to Graduate Teachers with B.Ed. The respondent No. 4 was for the first time appointed on temporary basis as an Assistant Teacher of Secondary School in August 1983 and his temporary tenure came to be terminated in April 1984. He was issued a fresh appointment letter on probation on or about 22.8.1984 and he came to be confirmed in August 1986. Even if the break in service in respect of respondent No. 4 during the period from 1.5.1984 to 22.8.1984 is ignored and he is given the benefit of continuous officiation, his date of joining for the purpose of seniority will have to be treated at the most from, 22.8.1983 only or 11.8.1983 as the case may be. It is, therefore, inferred from the records that the petitioner had put in about six years of service as a trained Secondary School Teacher when respondent No. 4 came to be appointed for the first time as a temporary teacher in the Secondary School by the respondent No. 3
13. There is one more aspect, which will have to be looked into for finally deciding the claim of inter se seniority between these two teachers. Rule 12 of the 1981 Rules deals with the subject of seniority, The said Rule is reproduced hereinbelow.
"Every Management shall prepare and maintain seniority list of the teaching staff including Head Master and Assistant Head Master and non-teaching staff in the School in accordance with the guidelines laid down in Schedule "F". The seniority list so prepared shall be circulated amongst the members of the staff concerned and their signatures for having received a copy of the list shall be obtained. Any subsequent change made in the seniority list from time to time shall also be brought to the notice of the members of the staff concerned and their signatures for having noted the change shall be obtained.
(2) Objections, if any, to the seniority list or to the changes therein shall be duly taken into consideration by the Management.
(3) Disputes, if any, in the matter of inter SB seniority shall be referred to the Education Officer for his decision."
Rule 12 as quoted above, contemplates Management to circulate a seniority list of Head Master, Assistant Head Master, Teachers and other non-teaching staff and their signatures are required to be obtained for having received a copy of such list. On circulation of such list, if any employee of the School desire to take an objection, such objection is required to be considered by the Management and in case there is any dispute between employees and the Management in the matter of inter se seniority, the same shall be referred to the Education Officer for his decision. The Education Officer is thus empowered to adjudicate the inter SB seniority dispute amongst Teachers or non-teaching staff of any Management of a private School. The guidelines for preparing and maintaining seniority list of teaching staff as well as non-teaching staff have been incorporated in Schedule 'P appended to the 1981 Rules. The relevant provision is reproduced for ready reference as under:
"2. Guidelines for fixation of seniority of Teacher in the Secondary Schools, Junior Colleges of Education and Junior College Classes attached to Secondary Schools and Senior Colleges :-
For the purpose of fixation of seniority of teacher in the Secondary Schools, Junior Colleges of Education and Junior College classes attached to Secondary Schools, the teachers should be categorised as follows :
Category A : .....
Category B : .....
Category C : Holder of -
.....
.....
.....
B.A./B.Sc./B.Com., S.T.C./ Dip.E.d./
Dip.T.(One year course) with 10 years
post S.T.C. etc. service.
....."
14. Undoubtedly, petitioner and respondent No. 4 fall in 'C' Category as per the seniority list published in 1987 itself. It is the contention of the respondent No. 4 that petitioner Shri Tijare cannot be an Assistant Teacher in the Secondary School and he cannot be classified under Category 'C'. However, by reading the guidelines as set out hereinabove it is clear that a Graduate with Diploma in Education or S.T.C. or Diploma in Teaching (one year course) with 10 years post S.T.C. etc. Service also falls in Category 'C' on par with an Assistant Teacher of Secondary School with B.A. + B.Ed. or its equivalent. A Graduate Teacher with Diploma in Education (D. Ed. - 2 years course) is required to satisfy an additional condition of 10 years experience to fall in Category 'C' on par with an Assistant Teacher of Secondary School with B.A. plus B.Ed. The only question that needs to be considered is whether such experience of ten years is required to be of post B.Ed. period or post D.Ed. period. If such experience is held to be of post D.Ed. passing years, obviously petitioner did not satisfy the requirement to be in Category 'C' in the seniority list as shown in 1987 because he has passed his B.Ed. only in 1984 and he could not come under Category 'C' till 1994. However, if it is held that ten years' experience is of post D.Ed. service, petitioner satisfies the requirement for being qualified under Category 'C' in the year 1980 itself because he has passed his D.Ed. examination in 1970 and joined as an Assistant Teacher on 1.7.1970 itself. The wording of the above quoted guidelines in Schedule 'F is material to decide the requirement of ten years' service and it ends with the words "with 10 years post S.T.C. etc. service". This indicates that the ten years' experience should be post S.T.C/Dip.Ed./Dip.T. (One year course). If it was to be the requirement that ten years experience should be after obtaining graduation degree or degree in Bachelor of Education, then the wording should have been "with 10 years post B.A. or B.Ed. etc. service". Such is not the case in the guidelines laid down in Schedule 'F' as set out hereinabove. It is, therefore, required to be held that requirement of ten years' teaching experience for a B.A./B.Sc./B.Com. with D.Ed. Teacher to fall in category 'C' had to be after passing D.Ed. examination and not after passing B.Ed. examination. In the result, it will have to be held that the petitioner came in Category 'C' as an Assistant Teacher of Secondary School in the year 1980-81 itself, whereas respondent No. 4 has been in the said Category right from his deemed date of joining i.e. 22.8.1983 even with giving him the benefit of condoning the break in his service prior to his appointment on probation. The petitioner fell in 'C' Category as soon as 1981 Rules became operational.
15. Reliance may be usefully placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Madhav Govindrao Budhe v. Education Officer, Zilla Parishad Nagpur and others, 1994 Mh.L.J. 42 (Sambre and Sirpurkar, JJ.) wherein a similar issue fell for consideration based on the provisions of Secondary Schools Code as was then prevailing and this Court held that principle of continuous officiation is squarely applicable to decide the seniority of trained Assistant Teachers falling in Category 'C' even if one has B.Ed, qualification and other has D.Ed. qualification so long as both of them are Graduates. Annexure (45) which was in relation to Rules 61 and 63 of the Secondary Schools Code provided guidelines for fixation of seniority list of the teachers in the non-Government Secondary Schools. Categories of teachers were also set out in Annexure (45) and Rule 3 therein read as under :
"The categories mentioned above represent the ladder of seniority and have been mentioned in descending order. The inter SB seniority of teachers falling in any single category should be determined on the basis of their length of continuous service in that category, in a single School or in Schools run by the same management."
This Court while interpreting Rule 3 held that it is specifically mandated that the inter se seniority of the teachers falling in any single category should be determined on the basis of their length of continuous service in that category in a single School or in different Schools run by the same Management. While referring to the specific case of Madhav (supra), this Court observed as under :
"It is an admitted position that the petitioner was only a matriculate when he joined the service. He acquired diploma in teaching in the year 1962 and on 31.12.1965 he was an under graduate trained teacher. Thus, he belonged to Category 'D' at the time when he was confirmed. Now after the advent of the Secondary Schools Code, the petitioner for the first time in the year 1967, became a graduate and thus stepped into category "C". He stepped into this category because of the improvement of his qualifications. Category "C" is applicable to those who hold degree of B.A./B.Sc. S.T.C./Dip.Ed.(One year course) or its equivalent. Therefore, in the year 1967, the petitioner belonged to Category "C" being a graduate and having a diploma in teaching."
The ratio laid down in the case of Madhav (supra) by this Court is squarely applicable to the present case, which is under 1981 Rules wherein Schedule 'F' framed under Rule 12 is on par with Annexure 45 framed under Rules 61 and 63 of the Secondary Schools Code.
A similar issue also came up for consideration before the Apex Court recently in the case of D.Stephen Joseph v. Union of India and others, .
The question for consideration before the Apex Court was regarding counting of service after obtaining graduation degree in Engineering for the purpose of promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer is respect of diploma holder Engineer holding the post of Junior Engineer and it was held that requirements of three years' experience does not commence after obtaining graduation in Engineering and even the experience prior to obtaining degree in Engineering will have to be counted for deciding the eligibility for promotion. In the case before the Supreme Court, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench by the impugned order had held that the respondents, who were holding the posts of Junior Engineers and had three years' regular service in that grade and also possessed degree in Electrical Engineering would be entitled to get such promotion to 50% reserved quota and their experience of three years was not to be reckoned from the date of acquisition of degree in Electrical Engineering. Upon challenge of the said order, the Apex Court upheld the order of the Tribunal and confirmed that the experience of three years was not required to be reckoned from the date of acquisition of degree in Electrical Engineering.
16. In the instant case also, the requirement of ten years' service is specifically provided to be counted post D.Ed./S.T.CYDip.T. and not post B.A. or B.Ed. examination. On the same analogy as held in the case of D. Stephen referred to hereinabove, the requirement of ten years' experience as provided in Schedule 'F' of 1981 Rules is to be read and interpreted.
17. In the facts and circumstances of the present case as discussed hereinabove, we, therefore, hold that the petitioner Shri Tijare came to be classified under Category 'C' as an Assistant Teacher in the Secondary School after ten years of his service from the initial date of appointment, i.e. 1-7-1970, whereas respondent No. 4 Shri Kadgaye came in the said Category from the date of his initial appointment, i.e. 22.8.1983 only and, therefore, petitioner is undoubtedly senior to respondent No. 4 as Assistant Teacher in Category 'C'. The seniority list circulated by the Management and finalised on 7.8.1995 is held to be correct and the decision of the Education Officer declaring petitioner as Junior to respondent No. 4 and hence, a surplus teacher, is hereby quashed and set aside. The impugned orders dated 6.4.1996 and 7.5.1996 are also quashed and set aside. We further direct the Education Officer to decide the issue of surplus teacher with the respondent No. 3 afresh by taking into consideration the seniority list of 7-8-1995 as a correct and legal one, within a period of one month from today.
18. In the result, Writ Petition No. 1201/96 is allowed in terms of prayer Clauses 'A' and 'B' and rule made absolute accordingly, whereas Writ Petition No. 971/97 hereby stands dismissed. No order as to costs in both the petitions.
19. Order accordingly.