G H MADHAVI versus CHAGAN & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 13 S.C.R. 1208 · Decided: 09-12-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1208
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 13 S.C.R.
MADHAVI
v.
CHAGAN & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3966 of 2020)
DECEMBER 09, 2020
[L. NAGESWARA RAO, HEMANT GUPTA AND
AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of
Service) Regulation Act, 1977 – Maharashtra Employees of Private
Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 – Appellant was
appointed at a School on a temporary basis on 16.07.1985 – She
possessed graduation and B.Ed degrees and was accordingly placed
in Category ‘C’ of schedule ‘F’ of the Rules, 1981 – Respondent
no.1 was appointed as Assistant teacher at the School on 01.08.1985,
he possessed qualification of Senior Secondary Certificate and
Diploma in Education at the time of appointment – The School
passed an order of upgradation of appellant to High School w.e.f.
24.11.1988 – Thereafter, the respondent no.1 acquired B.Sc. Degree
and entered category ‘D’ of Schedule ‘F’ – The dispute arose at the
time of appointment of appellant as the Head Master of the school
– Respondent no.1 claimed that he was appointed on regular basis
on 01.08.1985 as against appellant who was appointed against a
temporary vacancy on 16.07.1985 – Respondent no.1 contended
that he is senior to appellant and in terms of the Rules, he would be
entitled to be promoted as Head Master – The promotion order dated
31.05.2014 promoting appellant as Head Master was challenged
in appeal before the School Tribunal and the same was dismissed –
Writ Petition filed by the respondent no.1 was dismissed by the Single
Bench of the High Court – Thereafter, an application for review
filed was allowed – On appeal, held: The judgment in Bhawna v.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. is directly applicable to the present
case inasmuch as appellant was holding the qualifications of B.A.
B.Ed at the time of her initial appointment on 16.07.1985, though
she was appointed against a regular vacancy on 24.11.1988 –
However, respondent no.1 was not qualified for appointment as
Assistant Teacher as he graduated in science only in the year 1997
and passed B.Ed in 1999 – He was upgraded to Category ‘C’ only
[2020] 13 S.C.R. 1208
1208
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1209
upon acquiring these qualifications – Accordingly, the seniority list
mentioned respondent no.1’s name at serial no.10 while appellant
was placed at serial no.2, though first in Category ‘C’ – The school
in question is secondary school, therefore clause 2 of Schedule ‘F’
of the Rules would be referred – Keeping in view the principle laid
down in Vaijanath case, the appellant was qualified for appointment
as temporary teacher as she was a graduate and also possessed
B.Ed degree – Her appointment was in accordance with s.5(5) of
the Act – However, the respondent no.1 could not be treated to be
part of Category ‘C’ from the date of his initial appointment i.e.
01.08.1985 as he was neither a graduate nor a trained teacher
when he was appointed – Also, respondent no.1 was not even a
trained teacher on the date of his appointment and thus cannot
claim seniority on such ground from the date of his initial
appointment – Therefore, the judgment of High Court in review
cannot be sustained in law and the same is set aside.
Allowing the appeals and dismissing the contempt petition,
the Court
HELD: 1. The judgment in Bhawna v. State of Maharashtra
& Ors. is directly applicable to the present case inasmuch as
appellant was holding the qualifications of B.A., B.Ed. at the time
of her initial appointment on 16.7.1985, though she was appointed
against a regular vacancy on 24.11.1988. However, respondent
no. 1 was not qualified for appointment as Assistant Teacher as
he graduated in Science only in the year 1997 and passed B.Ed.
in 1999. He was upgraded to Category ‘C’ only upon acquiring
these qualifications. Accordingly, the seniority list circulated on
1.1.2014 mentioned respondent no. 1’s name at Serial No. 10
while appellant was placed at Serial No. 2, though first in Category
‘C’. [Para 20][1227-F-H]
2. Respondent no. 1 was only having senior secondary
certificate and a Diploma in Education at the time of his
appointment. With such qualifications, he was an under-graduate
teacher falling in Category II(2)(i) or (ii) of Schedule ‘B’ of the
Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of
Service) Rules, 1981. Such teacher is assigned Category ‘E’ as
per Schedule ‘F’. Clause II(1) of Schedule ‘B’, is in respect of
teachers possessing graduate degrees. When respondent no. 1
MADHAVI v. CHAGAN & OR

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.