Bombay High Court

MADHURI DNYANESHWAR KHANDESHE AND ANRversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR GOVERNMENT PLEADER AND ORS

Decided: 17 January 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN

Holding

Suresh Kashinath Jarkad became a member of Category “C” on June 20 1996, the date he obtained his B.A. (together with his earlier D.Ed.), not on July 3 2007 when he obtained his B.Ed.

Summary

The petition challenged an order of the Education Officer that placed Suresh Kashinath Jarkad senior to Madhuri Khandeshe and Ankush Taware under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Services) Rules, 1981. The core issue was the date on which each teacher entered Category “C” of Schedule “F” for seniority purposes. The petitioners argued that seniority should be based on their dates of joining (July 23 1997 and August 8 1997) because they already possessed a graduate degree and a B.Ed., whereas Suresh should only be counted from the date he obtained his B.Ed. (July 3 2007). The Court examined the MEPS Act, Schedule “F”, the 2023 Government Notification, and prior judgments (SVP Mandal and Krishna Gasti) interpreting the amendment to “catapult” teachers with a D.Ed. + B.A. into Category C on obtaining the B.A. The Court held that Suresh entered Category C on June 20 1996, the date he earned his B.A. together with his earlier D.Ed., and not on his B.Ed. date. Consequently, the petitioners’ claim of seniority advantage was dismissed and the impugned order upheld.

Issues considered

On what date does a teacher qualify for Category “C” of Schedule “F” under the MEPS Rules for seniority purposes?
Whether the 2023 Notification should be applied retrospectively or retroactively to determine seniority.
Whether the Education Officer’s order treating Suresh as senior to Madhuri and Ankush is legally valid.

Subjects

seniority
Category C
Schedule F
MEPS Rules
2023 Notification
retroactive application
headmaster appointment
education officer
catapulting provision

Judgment

WP-17140-2024 - J-F.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 17140 OF 2024

1.Madhuri Dnyaneshwar Khandeshe
Digitally
signed by
2. Ankush Maruti Taware ...Petitioners
SHRADDHA
SHRADDHA KAMLESH
KAMLESH TALEKAR
TALEKAR Date:
Versus
2026.01.17
14:34:20
+0530
1. State of Maharashtra
2. The Education Officer
(Secondary)Zilla Parishad, Pune
3. Suresh Kashinath Jarkad
4. Shikshan Prasarak Mandal
Through its Chairman/Secretary
5. Vidya Vikas Mandir
Secondary and Higher Secondary
Vidyalaya, through Headmaster …Respondents

Mr. Anil V. Anturkar, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. Atharva A. Date
for Petitioners.
Dr. Dhruti Kapadia, AGP for State-Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. Prasad Dani, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Yatin Malvankar i/by
Mr. Rakesh Jadhav for Respondent No. 3.

CORAM : SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.
Reserved on : January 9, 2025
Pronounced on : January 17, 2026

JUDGEMENT :

Context and Factual Background:

1. This Petition impugns an order dated September 2o, 2024

(“Impugned Order”) passed by Respondent No.2, The Education Officer

(Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Pune in connection with the seniority list

Page 1 of 25
January 17, 2025
Shraddha
WP-17140-2024 - J-F.doc

published by Respondent No.4, Shikshan Prasarak Mandal

(“Educational Institution”) in its School, Respondent No.5, Vidya Vikas

Mandir (“Secondary School”). For convenience, the Educational

Institution and the Secondary School are collectively referred to as the

“Employer”.

2. The Impugned Order declares the Respondent No.3, Suresh

Kashinath Jarkad (“Suresh”) as being senior to the two Petitioners,

Petitioner No.1, Madhuri Dnyaneshwar Khandeshe ( “Madhuri”) and

Petitioner No.2, Ankush Maruti Taware ( “Ankush”). Madhuri and

Ankush, being aggrieved by Suresh being treated as senior to them in

terms of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of

Services) Rules, 1981 (“MEPS Rules”) made under the Maharashtra

Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Services) Regulation Act,

1977 (“MEPS Act”), have sought quashing and setting aside the

Impugned Order.

3. The factual matrix summarizing the credentials of each of the

persons relevant for adjudication of this Petition is summarized in the

following manner :-

Suresh:

(a) Suresh joined the employment of the Employer

on June 23, 1993;
Page 2 of 25
January 17, 2025
Shraddha
WP-17140-2024 - J-F.doc

(b) Suresh then held a Diploma in Education (“D.

Ed.”), obtained on July 25, 1992;

degree on June 20, 1996; and

(d) Suresh went on to obtain a Bachelor in Education

(“B. Ed.”) degree on July 3, 2007.

Ankush:

(a) Ankush joined the Employer on August 8, 1997;

(b) Ankush then held a B.A. degree, obtained on July

4, 1994; and

24, 1995.

Madhuri:

(a) Madhuri joined the School on July 23, 1997;

(b) Madhuri then held a Bachelor of Science ( “B. Sc.”)

degree, obtained on June 30, 1990; and

Page 3 of 25
January 17, 2025
Shraddha
WP-17140-2024 - J-F.doc

May 5, 1993.

Core Issue:

4. The core question to be answered is: Which of the three

employees (among Madhuri, Ankush and Suresh) got into Category “C”

of Schedule “F” to the MEPS Rules first, for reckoning their inter se

seniority.

5. According to Madhuri and Ankush, their respective dates for

entry into Category “C” of Schedule “F” to the MEPS Rules should be

August 8, 1997 (for Ankush) and July 23, 1997 (for Madhuri) i.e. the

respective dates on which they joined the Employer. This position is

adopted on the basis that when they joined the employment of the

Employer, each of them already had a basic graduate degree, and in

addition, a B.Ed. degree.

6. Therefore, admittedly, Madhuri is senior to Ankush. The two

Petitioners are aligned in their interest. They are not competing for

seniority with each other. They jointly contend that in sharp contrast

with the position declared in the Impugned Order, Suresh should be

counted as having entered Category “C” of Schedule “F” to the MEPS

Page 4 of 25
January 17, 2025
Shraddha
WP-17140-2024 - J-F.doc

Rules only on July 3, 2007, i.e. a decade after them, which is the date on

which he obtained his B. Ed. degree. They contend that the Impugned

Order is wrong in treating Suresh as having joined Category “C” with

effect from June 20, 1996, the date on which he obtained in B.A. degree.

7. One Mr. Ankush Maruti Shingade retired as Head Master of

the School on May 31, 2024, creating a vacancy for the post. The two

main contenders for this position, by virtue of seniority, are Madhuri

and Suresh. Therefore, the adjudication has to be of whether Suresh

would qualify for seniority from June 20, 1996 or July 3, 2007. The

answer would lead to the question of who would be Head Master.

Analysis and Findings:

8. Against this factual background, it must be stated that Mr.

Anil Anturkar, Learned Senior Advocate on behalf of Madhuri and

Ankush; and Mr. Prasad Dani, Learned Senior Advocate on behalf of

Suresh were heard at length. With the assistance of their verbal and

written submissions, the record was considered.

9. At the threshold, two minor distractions may also be put out

of the way. First, after Suresh first joined the Employer, he had a break

in service, but it is common ground that after June 20, 1996, he has

Page 5 of 25
January 17, 2025
Shraddha
WP-17140-2024 - J-F.doc

been in uninterrupted service. Second, until Suresh graduated with a B.

Ed. degree, he would not have been qualified to teach students of

secondary education, but it is common ground that he had joined and

served the Secondary School, in which primary education is also

imparted. Therefore, for all necessary purposes of this Petition, he is a

teacher in the Secondary School, to which Schedule “F” of the MEPS

Rules would apply.

10. To answer the core issue set out above, one has to answer

whether Suresh’s seniority should be considered from June 20, 1996

(his B.A. graduation date) or from July 3, 2007 (his B. Ed. graduation

date).

WP 5617 – Scope of Remand:

11. The seniority issue has already been subject matter of

chequered litigation in the past. In the interest of brevity, the entire

historical flow of how the seniority list had been prepared by the

Educational Institution over the years, and the sequence of proceedings

in the past is not being reproduced by me here, choosing instead, to

focus on the core controversy involved in adjudication of this Petition.

However, suffice it to say that on an earlier occasion, a view taken by the

Education Officer on February 14, 2022 instructing that Suresh’s
Page 6 of 25
January 17, 2025
Shraddha
WP-17140-2024 - J-F.doc

seniority must be determined as being the earlier of (i) the date on

which Suresh completed ten years of service after obtaining the B.A.

degree; and (ii) the date on which Suresh obtained the B. Ed.

qualification, was challenged in Writ Petition No. 5617 of 2023 ( “WP

5617”).

12. By an order dated April 26, 2024 (“ Remand Order”), a

Learned Single Judge of this Court was pleased to quash and set aside

the order dated February 14, 2022, disposing of WP 5617 by remanding

the matter, with a direction that the seniority should be determined by

considering the law declared in judgement dated April 11, 2023 in

Sahakar Vidya Prasarak Mandal in Writ Petition No. 1221 of 2022 ( “SVP

Mandal”) and in judgement dated March 26, 2024 in Krishna Gasti in

Writ Petition No. 2952 of 2021 (“Krishna Gasti”).

13. The Remand Order is clear in its terms about the scope of the

remand. The law declared in SVP Mandal and Krishna Gasti was to be

applied. The Remand Order was not challenged further, and the scope

of remand remained undisturbed and attained finality.

14. Thereafter, the Employer submitted a new seniority list

treating Suresh as senior. This was opposed by Ankush, and based on

his objection, the Employer prepared another seniority list. Therefore,
Page 7 of 25
January 17, 2025
Shraddha
WP-17140-2024 - J-F.doc

two different seniority lists, one dated June 1, 2024, and another dated

August 29, 2024 fell for consideration by the Education Officer leaving

it to him to determine which seniority list is correct. The Education

Officer heard all the respective parties and then passed the Impugned

Order, by which he concluded that Suresh is senior to Madhuri and

Ankush, by applying the Government Notification dated March 24,

2023 (“2023 Notification”).

Regulatory Framework:

15. At the threshold it would be appropriate to extract the

relevant provisions of the MEPS Act and the MEPS Rules. Section 12 of

the MEPS Act, reads thus:

12. Seniority List

(1) 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.

Page 8 of 25
January 17, 2025
Shraddha
WP-17140-2024 - J-F.doc

(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 se seniority shall be
referred to the Education Officer for his decision.

[Emphasis Supplied]

16. The relevant extracts of Schedule “F” are set out below:

Schedule “F”

2. Guidelines for fixation of seniority of teachers in the
secondary schools, Junior Colleges of Education and Junior College
classes attached to Secondary Schools the teachers should be
categorised as follows:

*****

Category C : Holders of -

Master’s degree in Social Science/ Humanities/ Science/
Maths/Language (with 50% marks), M.Ed. (with 50% marks)/ M.A.
(Education) (with 50% marks) (in accordance with the changes made
by National Council for Teacher Education from time to time). OR

M. A. /M. Sc./M. Com., B.T./B. Ed., or its equivalent; OR

B. A./B. Sc./B. Com., B. T./B. Ed., or its equivalent; OR

B. A./B. Sc./B. Com., Dip. T. (old two years course)/ D.Ed. (old two
years course); OR

B. A./B. Sc./B. Com., S. T. C. /Dip. Ed./Dip. T. (one year course) with
ten years’ service; OR

*****

Page 9 of 25
January 17, 2025
Shraddha
WP-17140-2024 - J-F.doc

Category F : Untrained Graduates or holders of equivalent
qualification.

Category G : Untrained Matriculates or holders of equivalent
qualification.

Note 1 : For the purpose of categories C, D, and E teachers with S.
T. C., T. D., Jr. P. T. C. Dip, T., Dip. Ed. (post S.S.C. one year
course) qualifications appointed on or after 1st October 1970 shall
be considered as untrained and their seniority shall be fixed in the 'F'
or 'G' category of untrained teachers as the case may be.

Note 2 : The following training qualifications which can be secured
two years after S.S.C. Examination shall be considered as training
qualification for the purpose of seniority even after 1st October 1970
-

(1) D. Ed. (2 years)

(2) T. D. (Bombay University)

(3) Dip. Ed. (Nagpur University)

*****

Note 4 : The categories mentioned above represent the ladder of
seniority and have been mentioned in descending order.

[Emphasis Supplied]

17. A plain reading of the provisions would show that the

seniority list is required to be prepared and maintained in accordance

with the Schedule “F” which contains guidelines for preparation of the

seniority list. The seniority list is required to be circulated to all
Page 10 of 25
January 17, 2025
Shraddha
WP-17140-2024 - J-F.doc

members of the staff who are required to confirm having received a copy

with any subsequent change also being brought to the notice of such

staff. The staff is entitled to raise objections, which should be factored

in by the Management, after which, disputes in connection with inter se

seniority would be referred to the Education Officer for its decision.

18. It is common ground that in the instant case, the provisions of

Category “C” alone would be relevant – all the contenders fall within its

provisions. A quick outline of a few settled and well-accepted principles

for interpreting the aforesaid guidelines that deal with Category “C”

would be in order. As seen in Note 4 above, the Categories are in

hierarchical order but within Category “C”, the listing of multiple

combinations of qualifications does not connote any inter se hierarchy.

In other words, anyone falling in any of the combinations of

qualifications would qualify for Category “C” just as anyone else falling

in any other combination of qualifications listed in it. Therefore, for

determining inter se seniority within those falling in Category “C”, only

the date of entry into that Category would matter.

19. Under Category “C”, nine different combinations of

qualifications are listed. The structure of each combination of

qualifications involves reading the “,” (comma) as “ and” and the “/”

Page 11 of 25
January 17, 2025
Shraddha
WP-17140-2024 - J-F.doc

(oblique mark) as “or”. In other words, one would need any one of the

qualifications separated by an oblique mark (/), along with any one of

the qualifications separated by a comma (,).

20. The third combination of qualifications involves graduation in

B. A., B. Sc. or B. Com, and Bachelor in Training or B. Ed. or its

equivalent. The fourth combination of qualifications involves graduation

in B. A., B. Sc. or B. Com and S.T.C., Diploma in Training (old two years

course) or Diploma in Education (old two years course). The fifth

combination of qualifications involves graduation in B. A., B. Sc. or B.

Com and, among others, Diploma in Education or Diploma in Training

(one year course) with ten years of service.

21. In terms of Note 2 in Schedule “F”, Diploma in Education (two

years course), which can be obtained after the S.S.C. examination would

be considered as a training qualification. In other words, candidates

with this qualification would not be treated as “untrained” for them to

be placed in Category “F” or Category “G”.

22. Going by Madhuri’s contentions, in terms of Note 1, Suresh

ought to have been placed in Category “G” as an untrained matriculate

until he obtained his B.A. qualification (on June 20, 1996); and in

Category “F” until he got his B.Ed. (on July 3, 2007). At best, having
Page 12 of 25
January 17, 2025
Shraddha
WP-17140-2024 - J-F.doc

passed S.S.C examination with a D. Ed, he would fall in Category “E”

and on getting his B.A. he would get placed in Category “D”. By this

time, Madhuri had already joined employment with the Employer with

B.Sc and B.Ed. and therefore, having entered Category “C” on

employment, she contends she would be ahead of Suresh in the

seniority ranking within Category “C”.

2023 Notification:

23. However, the guidelines describing Category “C” were

amended by the 2023 Notification to include in the fourth combination

of qualifications, the D. Ed (two year course). The 2023 Notification

contains an inherent explanation for the insertion of D.Ed (two year

course) into the fourth combination of qualifications. Prior to

amendment, it entailed, in addition to the basic graduation, the Dip. T

(old two years course). The 2023 Notification explains that brought in

the D. Ed (two year course) as an eligibility criterion was a conscious

insertion. The 2023 Notification notes that many cases had been

pending in courts about the exclusion of D. Ed when Dip. T had been

included.

24. Therefore, this is a conscious legislative policy choice that had

been exercised in the making of this amendment to subordinate
Page 13 of 25
January 17, 2025
Shraddha
WP-17140-2024 - J-F.doc

legislation. This is precisely the amendment that is referred to in the

judgement of the Learned Single Judge ( N.J. Jamadar J) in SVP

Mandal, which is followed by another Learned Single Judge ( Gauri

Godse J) in Krishna Gasti. It was explicitly held that upon this

amendment being made, those having such a combination of

qualifications would be “catapulted” into Category “C” since that is the

evident policy intent behind the 2023 Notification.

25. SVP Mandal analysed the very same provisions and

interpreted Note 2 of Schedule “F” to return a finding that the contents

of Schedule “F” must be harmoniously read as a whole. Any other view,

according to the Learned Single Judge, would lead to the D. Ed. (two

year course) falling out of any of the entries in Category “C”. In the

absence of any stipulation that only those who complete the D. Ed (two

year course) after March 24, 2023 would get the benefit of the 2023

Notification, there is no basis to revisit the logical, fair and reasonable

declaration of the law by the Learned Single Judge in SVP Mandal.

26. Likewise, in the case of Krishna Gasti, by a judgement dated

March 26, 2024 a Learned Single Judge of this Court also took a similar

view and arrived at a finding that the acquisition of B.A. degree by a

person having D. Ed. post S.S.C. would bring such person within

Page 14 of 25
January 17, 2025
Shraddha
WP-17140-2024 - J-F.doc

Category “C” in Schedule “F” of the MEPS Rules as of the date of

acquiring the B.A. degree. The decision in Krishna Gasti is identical to

the facts of this case. Following the decision in SVP Mandal, it was held

that the person who already held a D. Ed and thereafter obtained a B.A.

degree would be catapulted into Category “C” immediately on obtaining

the B.A. degree.

27. The Remand Order squarely referred to the aforesaid view and

directed that it be applied as a term of the scope of remand. While

Madhuri was not a party to the WP 5167 which led to the Remand

Order, it was the scope of remand that governed the scope of analysis by

the Learned Education Officer. Mr. Dani would correctly point out that

these two judgements have been rightly applied by the Learned

Education Officer, whose findings, therefore, cannot be faulted and

must not be interfered with.

2023 Notification – Retrospective or Retroactive:

28. Faced with the precedent set by the two Learned Single

Judges, Mr. Anturkar has also made submissions on how these

interpretations need not be agreed with. In particular, he would point

out that effectively, the 2023 Notification is being given a retrospective

application. SVP Mandal, he would submit, renders a declaration that
Page 15 of 25
January 17, 2025
Shraddha
WP-17140-2024 - J-F.doc

the 2023 Notification wipes out pre-existing seniority established prior

to the 2023 Notification, and therefore, it is an arbitrary and

unconstitutional reading of the law. If I were to agree with Mr.

Anturkar, it would potentially lead to a case of a reference to a Division

Bench and therefore, I have considered this submission.

29. To begin with, the “catapulting” provided for in the

declaration of the law in SVP Mandal, appears to be a conscious decision

spelt out in the reasons transparently set out in the 2023 Notification.

The wisdom of this amendment is said to be under a constitutional

challenge, but that by itself would not be relevant for this Petition. So

long as the provision as amended is part of the legislation, it has to be

applied. The nuance sought to be underlined is that even while the

2023 Notification is a part of the legislation, its interpretation should be

made in a manner that renders it reasonable and constitutional rather

than arbitrary and unconstitutional. Therefore, whether it applies

retrospectively is a question to be considered.

30. In my view, the 2023 Notification is not being applied

retrospectively. For the interpretation in SVP Mandal to be

retrospective in nature, it would need to disturb promotions and

benefits that have already been conferred as a consequence of the

Page 16 of 25
January 17, 2025
Shraddha
WP-17140-2024 - J-F.doc

seniority. That is not the case in the matter in hand. The effect of the

2023 Notification is only being applied prospectively for actions that

follow after the 2023 Notification took effect. In the instant case, it

would be determinative of who would be the next Head Master and that

is an event taking place after the 2023 Notification. It is nobody’s case

that by reason of the 2023 Notification, the incumbent of any position is

now being displaced by the “catapulting” of a person who has a

graduation degree with D. Ed qualification. This is not a “retrospective”

application but a “retroactive” application.

31. The law on when an amendment is “retrospective” and when

“retroactive” is well summarised in Rajkumar Nagpal1 and would

squarely apply to the facts of this case and will bear out the position that

the 2023 Notification is not a retrospective amendment as interpreted

in SVP Mandal. The following extracts declare the law in relation new

requirements and conditions stipulated by a circular issued by the

Securities and Exchange Board of India for a valid restructuring of debt.

At the risk of adding to the length of this judgement, they are set out

below:

(iv) The SEBI Circular has retroactive application

1
SEBI vs. Rajkumar Nagpal – (2023) 8 SCC 274
Page 17 of 25
January 17, 2025
Shraddha
WP-17140-2024 - J-F.doc

98. Mr N. Venkataraman, learned Senior Counsel and Additional Solicitor
General has argued that the SEBI Circular is retroactive in nature as it does
not take away or impair any vested rights. It operates in the future, based on
events that arose prior to its issuance. Mr Darius Khambata, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for RCFL argued that the effect of applying the SEBI
Circular to the present case will render it retrospective and not retroactive.
According to him, Clauses 22 and 23 of the Fifth Schedule to the Debenture
Trust Deed(s) vested debenture-holders with the right to authorise debenture
trustees “to sanction any compromise or arrangement proposed to be made
between the company and the beneficial owner(s)/debenture-holder(s)”. This
sanction could be authorised by a majority of “not less than three-fourths of
the persons voting … or if a poll is demanded … not less than three-fourths in
value of the votes cast on such poll”. The SEBI Circular, it has been urged,
changed the nature of the special majority required to sanction a compromise
by introducing the requirement of a majority of 60% of ISIN level votes.

99. We are of the opinion that the SEBI Circular has retroactive
application. In Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P. Singh
(14th Edn., 2016 at p. 583), it is stated that:
“The rule against retrospective construction is not applicable to a
statute merely because “a part of the requisites for its action is drawn
from a time antecedent to its passing”. If that were not so, every
statute will be presumed to apply only to persons born and things
which come into existence after its operation and the rule may well
result in virtual nullification of most of the statutes.”

100. In Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma [Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh
Sharma, (2020) 9 SCC 1 : (2021) 1 SCC (Civ) 119] this Court described the
nature of prospective, retrospective, and retroactive laws : (SCC p. 53, para
61)
Page 18 of 25
January 17, 2025
Shraddha
WP-17140-2024 - J-F.doc

“61. The prospective statute operates from the date of its enactment
conferring new rights. The retrospective statute operates backwards
and takes away or impairs vested rights acquired under existing laws.
A retroactive statute is the one that does not operate retrospectively. It
operates in futuro. However, its operation is based upon the character
or status that arose earlier. Characteristic or event which happened in
the past or requisites which had been drawn from antecedent events.”

101. The terms “retrospective” and “retroactive” are often used
interchangeably. However, their meanings are distinct. This Court succinctly
appreciated the difference between these concepts in State Bank's Staff Union
(Madras Circle) v. Union of India [State Bank's Staff Union (Madras
Circle) v. Union of India, (2005) 7 SCC 584 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 994] :
“Retroactivity” is a term often used by lawyers but rarely defined. On
analysis it soon becomes apparent, moreover, that it is used to cover at
least two distinct concepts. The first, which may be called “true
retroactivity”, consists in the application of a new rule of law to an act
or transaction which was completed before the rule was promulgated.
The second concept, which will be referred to as “quasi-retroactivity”,
occurs when a new rule of law is applied to an act or transaction in the
process of completion….The foundation of these concepts is the
distinction between completed and pending transactions….” [T.C.
Hartley, The Foundations of European Community Law 129 (1981).]

102. Many decisions of this Court define “retroactivity” to mean laws
which destroy or impair vested rights. In real terms, this is the definition of
“retrospectivity” or “true retroactivity”. “Quasi-retroactivity” or simply
“retroactivity” on the other hand is a law which is applicable to an act or
transaction that is still underway. Such an act or transaction has not been
completed and is in the process of completion. Retroactive laws also apply

Page 19 of 25
January 17, 2025
Shraddha
WP-17140-2024 - J-F.doc

where the status or character of a thing or situation arose prior to the passage
of the law. Merely because a law operates on certain circumstances which are
antecedent to its passing does not mean that it is retrospective.

103. In the present case, RCFL issued the debentures and defaulted on the
payments to the debenture-holders prior to the issuance of the SEBI Circular.
However, as of 13-10-2020 (the date on which the SEBI Circular came into
force), a compromise or agreement on the restructuring of the debt owed by
RCFL did not exist. The debenture-holders were not vested with any rights
with respect to the resolution of RCFL's debt. The existence of the debt and the
subsequent default by RCFL was the status of events, which existed prior to
13-10-2020. Once it came into force, the SEBI Circular applied to the manner
of resolution of debt, as specified therein.
[Emphasis Supplied]

32. It would be abundantly clear that merely because a law would

have an effect on facts and circumstances that arose prior to its

introduction, the law would not become a retrospective law. The

qualifications obtained by all the three candidates had been acquired

before the 2023 Notification. Once the amendment was effected by the

2023 Notification, it had prospective effect on the consequences of such

qualifications already held as of the date of its introduction i.e. March

24, 2023. This is a classic case of retroactive application. This is not a

case where Madhuri was already the Head Master or was the beneficiary

of some position as of March 24, 2023, and by reason of the 2023
Page 20 of 25
January 17, 2025
Shraddha
WP-17140-2024 - J-F.doc

Notification, she was asked to give it up and make way for Suresh – that

would have perhaps enabled a contention of retrospective application.

In the case at hand, the reckoning as to who is now senior is being taken

on the basis of the law now applicable – the law amended way back on

March 24, 2023. This is not a retrospective operation at all.

No Grandfathering Provision Involved:

33. On the other hand, to preserve special status for those who

had a certain treatment before amendment, the 2023 Notification ought

to have created a “datum line” out of March 24, 2023, and created two

streams of implications – for those falling on either side of the date.

This would have required what is popularly called a “grandfathering

clause” which allows existing situations that people who are affected by

the law to remain exempt from the operation of the new law. The 2023

Notification contains no such framework or provision to enable multiple

contentions made by Mr. Anturkar on behalf of Madhuri, for me to

disagree with the law already declared in SVP Mandal and consider

making a reference to a larger bench. I am in respectful agreement with

the law already declared and I find no reason to deviate from it, or to re-

open the controversy with a disagreement on the law declared. As

already stated, the policy intent is made abundantly clear in the 2023

Page 21 of 25
January 17, 2025
Shraddha
WP-17140-2024 - J-F.doc

Notification itself – there being no plausible reason to exclude D.Ed

when Diploma in Training was included in the fourth combination of

qualifications listed in Category “C” of Schedule “F”.

34. Suresh completed his S.S.C. after which he obtained D. Ed on

July 25, 1992. He had joined the School on June 23, 1993. While being

employed in the School, he obtained his B.A. degree on June 20, 1996.

Therefore, as of June 20, 1996, the combination of qualifications held by

Suresh entailed a B.A. degree with D. Ed that he already held.

Therefore, Suresh’s entry into Category “C” was completed by June 20,

1996. That Suresh went on to also obtain a B. Ed. Degree and did so by

July 3, 2007, would only represent a further qualification by Suresh in

his own quest for enhancing his credentials. However, for purposes of

being counted as a constituent of Category “C”, the two qualifications

held by him namely the B.A. degree along with the D. Ed would bring

him within the fourth combination of qualifications under Category “C”

upon the 2023 Notification taking effect – which is a retroactive

operation and not a retrospective operation.

35. On the other hand, Madhuri, graduated with B. Sc. degree

prior to Suresh on June 30, 1990 and even obtained her B. Ed. degree

on May 5, 1993. However, her date of appointment in the School is July

Page 22 of 25
January 17, 2025
Shraddha
WP-17140-2024 - J-F.doc

23, 1997, which is after June 20, 1996. Therefore, indeed, when

Madhuri joined the School she joined as an integral member of Category

“C” with both B. Sc. as well as B. Ed. Qualifications in hand, falling in

the third of the listed combination of qualifications. However, on the

date she joined the School, Suresh already had the qualifications

stipulated in the fourth combination of qualifications – he had them as

of June 20, 1996.

36. The above outcome is obtained by applying the guidelines for

Category “C” as it stands today to the facts of the case as applied today,

when the transaction of choosing the Head Master is to be effected. The

provisions of Category “C” as they stand today had been inserted with

effect from March 24, 2023. As already stated, there is nothing in the

law to protect those who would be affected by the amendment to be

made immune from the amendment by insertion of a “grandfathering”

provision. The expectation of continued discrimination against Suresh

as applied to him before March 24, 2023 (by the exclusion of D. Ed

qualification even while Dip. T qualification was included) is not rooted

in any sound legal basis.

37. For the very same reason, I am unable to accept that Suresh’s

entry into Category “C” would start on March 24, 2023. This would

Page 23 of 25
January 17, 2025
Shraddha
WP-17140-2024 - J-F.doc

have been the outcome had there been a “grandfathering” provision in

the 2023 Notification. In its absence, there having been no stipulation

of creating two classes and streams of implications for those to whom

Schedule “F” applied, it would not be possible to treat Suresh as not

being a beneficiary of the 2023 Notification as interpreted by the

judgement in SVP Mandal.

38. The law as applicable when the seniority list is being drawn up

is the law to apply. Such an application is explicitly in conformity with

the Remand Order.

Conclusion:

39. For the aforesaid reasons, in my opinion, it is declared that

Suresh became a member of Category “C” on June 20, 1996, and not on

July 3, 2007. Therefore, when the Head Master’s position fell vacant in

2024, and the seniority lists as applicable in 2024 have to form the basis

for that decision, the law to be applied is as it stood when such seniority

list was drawn up – which is Schedule “F” as amended on March 23,

2024. Applying that law, the aforesaid outcome would follow.

40. Therefore, no case is made out for interference with the

Impugned Order. The contentions made on behalf of Madhuri and

Page 24 of 25
January 17, 2025
Shraddha
WP-17140-2024 - J-F.doc

Ankush against Suresh’s seniority are devoid of merit, and therefore,

this Writ Petition is dismissed.

41. All actions required to be taken pursuant to this order shall be

taken upon receipt of a downloaded copy as available on this Court’s

website.

[SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.]

Page 25 of 25
January 17, 2025
Shraddha

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…