Seniority Dispute in Maharashtra Private Schools: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal

The dispute over inter-se seniority between two assistant teachers in a private school under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, reached the Supreme Court of India. The appellant, Ku. Bhawana, challenged the decision of the High Court, which upheld that the 5th respondent, who was appointed as a trained teacher, was rightly placed senior to her.

Background of the Case

Ku. Bhawana was appointed as an untrained teacher in a private high school on July 15, 1994. She obtained her B.Ed qualification on September 19, 1997, thereby becoming a trained teacher. In the meantime, the 5th respondent was appointed as a trained assistant teacher on August 13, 1997. The primary issue in dispute was whether the appellant should be considered senior, having joined the school earlier, or if the 5th respondent’s status as a trained teacher from the date of appointment granted him seniority.

The school authorities initially placed Ku. Bhawana senior to the 5th respondent, leading to a grievance. The matter was referred to the Education Officer under Rule 12(3) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Rules, 1981, which governs such disputes.

Decision of the Education Officer

The Education Officer ruled in favor of the 5th respondent, stating that:

The 5th respondent was appointed directly as a trained teacher, while the appellant only acquired training later.
Under Rule 12 of the 1981 Rules, seniority is determined based on qualification and date of entry into the cadre.
The appellant, though employed earlier, entered the trained teacher category only after the 5th respondent had already been appointed in that category.

The High Court, in reviewing the case, upheld the Education Officer’s ruling.

Arguments by the Petitioner (Ku. Bhawana)

Inter-se seniority should be based on continuous officiation, as she joined the school first.
The 5th respondent was appointed temporarily and should not be granted seniority before confirmation.
Her service should be counted from the date of appointment, irrespective of when she obtained her B.Ed qualification.
Her claim also included salary escalation benefits that were granted to trained graduates.

Arguments by the Respondents

The 5th respondent was appointed as a trained teacher and was always a member of the higher category (Category ‘C’).
The appellant, though appointed earlier, was in the untrained category (Category ‘F’) until she obtained her B.Ed.
As per Rule 12, seniority is determined by category and cadre entry, not just by date of appointment.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Ajay Rastogi reviewed the case and noted:

“The 5th respondent was a trained teacher at the time of appointment and entered Category ‘C’ immediately, whereas the appellant was initially in Category ‘F’ and entered Category ‘C’ only after acquiring B.Ed. qualification. As per the scheme of the Rules, the appellant could not have claimed seniority over the 5th respondent.”

The Court further emphasized:

“The Rules categorize teachers based on qualifications, and preference is given in descending order. A person in a lower category cannot claim seniority over a person who was in a higher category from the beginning.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the 5th respondent was rightly placed senior based on Rule 12 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

Seniority in Maharashtra private schools is determined by category and qualifications, not just length of service.
An untrained teacher cannot claim seniority over a trained teacher appointed in a higher category.
The High Court correctly upheld the Education Officer’s decision, confirming that cadre-based seniority rules take precedence.

This ruling reinforces the importance of qualifications in determining promotions and seniority in the education sector.

Petitioner Name: Ku. Bhawana.
Respondent Name: State of Maharashtra & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice Ajay Rastogi.
Place Of Incident: Maharashtra.
Judgment Date: 04-01-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Ku. Bhawana vs State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 04-01-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Promotion Cases
See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by Ashok Bhushan
See all petitions in Judgment by Ajay Rastogi
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments January 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category