Bombay High Court
Devdas Dawan Dhawale vs Education Officer (Second) & 3 Ors on 29 June, 2017
Author: B.P. Dharmadhikari
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari, Rohit B. Deo
1 lpa150.08
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.150 OF 2008
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.4645 OF 2007
Devdas s/o Dawan Dhawale,
Aged - Major, Occu. - Service,
Harihar Vidyalaya, Parsheoni,
District - Nagpur. .... APPELLANT
VERSUS
1) Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.
2) Rural Education Society,
through its Secretary,
Parsoeoni, District Nagpur.
3) Shri B.S. Ledade,
Acting Head Master,
Harihar Vidyalaya, Parsheoni,
District Nagpur.
4) Harihar Vidyalaya,
through its Head Master,
Parsheoni, District Nagpur. .... RESPONDENTS
______________________________________________________________
Ms. Muley, Advocate holding for Shri S.P. Bhandarkar, Advocate for
the appellant,
Ms. Ritu Kaliya, AGP for respondent No.1
Shri Anand Parchure, Advocate with Shri D. Deshpande, Advocate for
respondent Nos.2 to 4
______________________________________________________________
::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2017 00:35:02 :::
2 lpa150.08
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND
ROHIT B. DEO, JJ.
DATED : 29-06-2017
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
1. Heard Advocate Ms. Muley holding for Advocate Shri S.P. Bhandarkar for the appellant/original petitioner, Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Ritu Kaliya for respondent No.1 and Advocate Shri Anand Parchure with Advocate Shri Deshpande for respondent Nos. 2 to 4.
2. Question is whether service put in by respondent No.3 from 01-07-1985 till his appointment on probation on 02-07-1988 has been correctly clubbed with his service after that date and therefore, he has been correctly fixed in seniority over the petitioner. Petitioner has joined as a probationer on 13-11-1986. Thus ignoring previous service rendered by respondent No.3 makes him junior to petitioner. Records show that for the first time on 08-05-2001 petitioner raised objection and claimed seniority over respondent No.3 when seniority list for year 2000-01 was published. He has repeated the same again on 26-09-2002.
::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2017 00:35:02 :::
3 lpa150.08
3. The representation again has been made on 21-11-2005. Education Officer under Rule 12 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (in short "MEPS Rules") has looked into this grievance on 18/19-07-2007. Said order observes that break in service of respondent No.3 was condoned by management and he was given date of joining service as 01-08-1985.
4. This order of Education Officer formed subject matter of Writ Petition No.4645/2007 before the learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge has, at the stage of motion hearing, looked into provisions of Rule 13 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, to note that in case of such successive appointments, salary for summer vacation cannot be denied to incumbent. From it, an analogy of employment being continuously has been drawn. The petition, therefore, came to be dismissed.
5. Advocate Ms. Mule has submitted that Rule 13 of the MEPS Rules lays down entitlement of such incumbent to salary during vacation period and it does not lay down any principle regulating seniority. As respondent No.3 was appointed on probation for the first time on 02-07-1988, he can be treated as holding the post from that ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2017 00:35:02 ::: 4 lpa150.08 date only and accordingly his seniority ought to have been determined and fixed. The petitioner was appointed on probation prior to him i.e. from 13-11-1986 and as such petitioner ranked above respondent No.3.
6. She points out that the Education Officer did not conduct complete enquiry and has accepted statement of management that break in service of respondent No.3 has been condoned. She submits that when respondent No.3 was not holding post before 1988, there was no question of condoning the break during said tenure. She has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court to which he will make reference little latter.
7. Advocate Shri Parchure, on the other hand, submits that Section 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 obliges respondent No.2-employer to fill in permanent vacancy immediately on permanent basis. In the wake of this provision, earlier service put in by respondent No.3 has been looked into and counted as continuous one. He heavily relies upon observation of Education Officer that break was already condoned by management and seniority lists were being published ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2017 00:35:02 ::: 5 lpa150.08 from time to time. He contends that for the first time objection to seniority lists was raised on 08-05-2001 by way of after thought. He relied upon the judgment in the case of Sumangala w/o Manoharrao Sakharkar vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported at 2010(1) Mh.L.J. 63, to urge that the condonation of breaks in present situation by taking recourse of Rule 13 of the MEPS Rules results in making respondent No.3 senior to appellant.
8. Assistant Government Pleader adopts arguments of respondent Nos.2 to 4 and supports the order of Education Officer.
9. The first judgment relied upon by Advocate Ms. Muley is in the case of State of Haryana vs. Haryana Veterinary and AHTS Association and another reported at (2000) 8 SCC 4. There the Hon'ble Apex Court has pointed out difference between regular service and continuous service. Twelve years regular service entitles Engineers to selection grade. Hon'ble Apex Court found that High Court was in error in construing said expression as continuous service. Here we are not concerned with grant of any such benefit. The question to be looked into is about seniority and continuous officiation entitling incumbent to claim seniority from the day he was employed. ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2017 00:35:02 :::
6 lpa150.08
10. Other judgment relied upon by her is in the case of State of Punjab and another vs. Ashwini Kumar and others reported at (2008) 12 SCC 572. There provisions of Rules 8 of Punjab Civil Services (General and Common Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 prescribed that seniority of persons appointed on purely provisional basis or on ad hoc basis would be determined as and when they are regularly appointed keeping in view date of such regular appointment. Thus the observations of Hon'ble Apex Court are in the light of this legal provision.
11. Third judgment relied upon is in the case of Central Council for Research in Homeopathy vs. Bipin Chandra Lakhera and others reported at (2011) 15 SCC 563. There the Hon'ble Apex Court has reversed the judgment of the High Court and in the process, in paragraph 5, has observed that post of Research Assistant was advertised in 1986, respondent No.1 had applied for that post, appeared before Selection Committee, but was not found suitable. He was continued on ad hoc basis because of interim orders passed by High Court. The post was re-advertised in 1995 and he was then selected. Thus in these facts, the Hon'ble Apex Court has found that his service before regularisation from 05-01-1996 could not be added ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2017 00:35:02 ::: 7 lpa150.08 for the purpose of counting his seniority. Facts at hand are different.
12. In the judgment reported at Sumangala w/o Manoharrao Sakharkar vs. State of Maharashtra and others (supra), the learned Single Judge has found that discontinuation of employee during vacation does not constitute break in service. It is in this background that provisions of Rule 12 of the MEPS Rules are interpreted and it is observed that it is for management to condone the breaks in service for the purpose of computation of seniority. It has been clarified that condonation of breaks for the purposes of pension and for counting of seniority do not stand on same pedestall.
13. In the present matter, perusal of order passed by Education Officer dated 18/19-07-2007 shows that while finding out how service earlier rendered by respondent No.3 has been treated, the Education Officer has in first three paragraph after recording attendance, noted facts or contentions. Management could not explain to him why respondent No.3 was appointed only for one session in 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88, respondent No.3 himself also could not explain, but claimed that break was for reasons beyond his control. Secretary of society pointed out that break was already condoned. The ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2017 00:35:02 ::: 8 lpa150.08 statement made by Secretary that break had been condoned was accepted and date 01-07-1985 has been given effect to and therefore, fixed as the date of seniority of respondent No.3. This order does not show perusal of decision of management to condone break or then the date on which such decision was taken.
14. Learned Advocate for respondent No.3 has urged that seniority lists were published from time to time and were not objected too. We tried to find out when after 1988, seniority list was published. The order of Education Officer does not contend any reference to it. Even present respondent No.3 has not specifically pointed out that every year lists were being circulated and in all those lists, he was shown senior to present appellant.
15. It is in this background that matter came before the learned Single judge in writ petition. Before Education Officer present appellant had claimed that earlier two appointments of respondent No.3 were against backlog. This contention does not find mention anywhere in the order of Education Officer. It has not been raised as a ground before the learned Single Judge in writ petition. Learned Single Judge has applied his mind in this backdrop and noted ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2017 00:35:02 ::: 9 lpa150.08 provisions of Rule 13 of the MEPS Rules. Perusal of Rule 13 shows that a teacher in service before closure of school for summer vacation, if reappointed after summer vacation, automatically becomes entitled vacation wages. Thus, though he has not worked, he becomes entitled to vacation salary. If defence of appellant as raised before Education Officer that earlier two appointments of respondent No.3 were against backlog vacancy is correct, two successive appointments against such reserved post, may enable respondent No.3 only to claim vacation salary. It will not enable him to claim seniority from the initial date of his appointment against such reserved post. We, therefore, find recourse to Rule 13 of the MEPS Rules for the purposes of understanding the concept of seniority unsustainable.
16. We are not obvious of the fact that appointments were made sometime in 1985 or 1986 and present appellant and respondent No.3 have already put in service in excess of thirty-one years. They may, therefore, be now nearing the age of superannuation.
17. However, controversy raised has not been properly approached. As rightly pointed out by learned Advocate appearing for respondent No.3, if vacancy was of permanent nature, mandate of ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2017 00:35:02 ::: 10 lpa150.08 Section 5 obliges respondent No.2 to fill in that vacancy on permanent basis. If as claimed by present appellant in his objection before Education officer, it was a backlog vacancy, respondent No.3 could not have claimed any right because of that appointment. In that event, question of condoning the break itself will not arise. All these disputed questions have remained unanswered at the hands of Education Officer and then learned Single Judge. Perusal of advertisement with reference to which respondent No.3 was selected was essential. If the advertisement itself was for a temporary vacancy, the incumbent selected in pursuance thereof could not have claimed continuation after regular selection. As advertisement is not looked into and ultimately, it appears that in 1988 respondent No.3 has been selected against clear vacancy and was appointed on probation, we are avoiding to record a binding finding on any of these issues. We feel that when issue was being agitated since long, the authorities were duty bound to address it appropriately.
18. We, therefore, quash and set aside the order of Education Officer dated 18/19-07-2007. The objection raised by petitioner as also other pleadings in relation thereto are restored back to the file of respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 shall give a fresh look to ::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2017 00:35:02 ::: 11 lpa150.08 controversy after calling for necessary records from respondent Nos. 2 and 4. Present appellant as also respondent No.3 shall be given due opportunity to place their case.
19. In view of these directions, it is apparent that the judgment delivered by learned Single Judge also cannot stand.
20. We direct appellant as also respondent No.3 to appear before respondent No.1-Education Officer on 20-07-2017 and to abide by his further instructions in the matter. That authority shall call for records, permit parties to inspect it and grant them leave to file additional affidavits, if they so desire. After this formalities are over, effort shall be made to decide the controversy at the earliest and in any case by 30-12-2017.
21. With these directions, we partly allow this letters patent appeal and dispose it of. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
adgokar
::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2017 00:35:02 :::