Bombay High Court

RANJIT SHIVAJI NALAWADEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPT. AND ORS

Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The petitioner is senior to Respondent No.5 and the impugned order is quashed.

Summary

The petitioner, a teacher appointed on 18‑06‑2009, challenged the Education Officer’s order that treated him as junior to Respondent No.5, who was appointed on 17‑06‑2013, by relying on a grant‑in‑aid approval letter dated 17‑06‑2013. The petitioner argued that his original appointment order and subsequent resolutions established his seniority, while Respondent No.5 contended that no appointment letter existed for the petitioner before 2013 and that the approval letter was decisive. The court examined the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, particularly Rule 12 and Note 3 of Schedule F, which prescribe the date of continuous appointment as the determinant of seniority. It held that the approval letter could not override the earlier appointment order and that the Education Officer’s reliance on it was a patent illegality. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed and the petitioner was declared senior to Respondent No.5.

Issues considered

Does the date of continuous appointment under the MEPS Rules determine inter‑se seniority between teachers?
Can an approval letter dated 17‑06‑2013 be used to establish seniority over an earlier appointment order?
Is the Education Officer’s reliance on the approval letter an illegal act?
Does service rendered in an unaided school affect the claim to seniority?

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 — s. Rule 12

Subjects

seniority
private school teachers
appointment date
MEPS Rules
grant‑in‑aid
writ petition
quashing order
inter se seniority

Judgment

                       1                     58-WP-491-2020 (C)

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
             CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
              WRIT PETITION NO. 491 OF 2020

Ranjit Shivaji Nalawade                     …...Petitioner
      Vs.
The State Of Maharashtra Through
Secretary School Education Dept. & Ors.     …...Respondents

                                ...
Mr. Sagar Mane with Mr. Rushikesh Jagdale and Ms. Neha
Farakate, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Mahindra B. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.3
and 4.
Mr. Prashant Bhavake, Advocate for the Respondent No.5.
Mr. Sanjay D. Rayrikar, AGP for Respondent-State.
                                …


                  CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
                   DATE : 16TH SEPTEMBER, 2026.

ORDER :

.      Heard both sides.


2.     The Petitioner is challenging the adjudication of the

Respondent-Education Officer, invoking the powers under Rule

12 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions

of Service) Rules, 1981 (for short “MEPS Rules”) holding

Respondent No.5 to be senior by relying upon the order of

approval.
                       2                          58-WP-491-2020 (C)

3.    Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that

the Petitioner was appointed on 18.06.2009. Respondent No.5

was appointed on 17.06.2013. After the School started receiving

20% grant-in-aid, the proposal was forwarded, and in the

approval letter, the date of appointment of both the teachers is

stated to be 17.06.2013. According to the learned counsel, the

said date is not decisive. The Management corroborates the

Petitioner’s claim.


4.    Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent

No.5 submits that the letter dated 28.08.2019 does not support

the Petitioner’s claim. His client has not been supplied with any

appointment letter 18.06.2009, and there is no record to indicate

that the Petitioner was appointed on 18.06.2009. It is clearly

stated in the letter dated 28.10.2015 that the appointments of

both the teachers were with effect from 17.06.2013.


5.    Mr. Mahindra B. Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for

the Respondent-Management, supports the Petitioner’s claim. He

submits that, as per the appointment orders, the resolution dated

04.08.2019, and the covering letter addressed by the President to

the Education Officer, it is indicated that the Petitioner is senior
                          3                             58-WP-491-2020 (C)

on the basis of the date of appointment.


6.    The Petitioner and Respondent No.5 fall in Category “C” of

schedule F appended to MEPS Rules. As per Note No.3, the date

of continuous appointment would be the decisive factor for

determining seniority. The Management has taken a stand that

the   Petitioner    was       appointed   on    18.06.2009,    which    is

corroborated   by    the      appointment      order,   resolution   dated

04.08.2019 and covering letter dated 18.06.2019. The Petitioner

entered Category “C” at an earlier point of time. The date of

appointment recorded as 17.06.2013 in the letter dated

20.10.2015 by the Education Officer is inconsequential. The letter

of approval cannot be the foundation for determining the inter se

seniority between the Petitioner and Respondent No.5.


7.    The Education Officer has committed patent illegality in

relying upon the order of approval indicating the date of

appointment of the Petitioner as well as Respondent No.5 as

17.06.2013. The communication made by the Head Master on

28.03.2019 is de hors the record.


8.    It is also relevant to notice that, though the Petitioner
                         4                         58-WP-491-2020 (C)

rendered services from 18.06.2009 in an unaided school, that

would not wipe out his tenure and claim for seniority. Hence, the

impugned order is unsustainable.


9.       The impugned order is quashed and set aside. It is declared

that the Petitioner is senior then Respondent No.5. Writ Petition

is accordingly allowed.




                                [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME J. ]


Suresh

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…