SANGITA RAMANLAL SOLANKI @ SANGITA ANIL PASADversusSMT. REETA DILIP CHOKSI AND ORS

                                                                            WP-6226-2011 (J) C2.doc




           Digitally signed
                                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
           by
           HUSENBASHA
HUSENBASHA RAHAMAN                              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
RAHAMAN    NADAF
NADAF
           Date:
           2026.09.09
           18:59:16 +0530                     WRIT PETITION NO. 6226 OF 2011
                              Sangita Ramanlal Solanki
                              @ Sangita Anil Pasad
                              Age: 43 Yrs., Occ: H.M.
                              C/o: M.P. Kenia Gujrati School,
                              Mamal Apatrment, Subhash Road,
                              Dombivali (W).                               ...Petitioner
                                      Vs.
                              1. Smt. Reeta Dilip Choksi
                                 Age: 55 Yrs., Occ: Service,
                                 R/at: 202, Hari Iccha Apartment,
                                 Near harsh Dharmesh Society,
                                 Karve Road,
                                 Dombivali (W), Dist : Thane.
                              2. The President
                                 Sai Trust, Mamal Apatrment,
                                 Navapada, Subhash Road,
                                 Dombivali (W) Dist: Thane.
                              3. The Headmistress,
                                 M.P. Kenia Gujrati School,
                                 Sai Trust, Mamal Apatrment,
                                 Navapada, Subhash Road,
                                 Dombivali (W) Dist: Thane.
                              4. The Administrative Officer,
                                 Kalyan Dombivali Mahanagar
                                 Palika Shiksahn Mandal,
                                 Jojwala Complex, Agra Road,
                                 Kalyan (W).                               ...Respondents

                                                                ***
                              Mr. Mandar Limaye a/w Ms. Deepali Deherkar and Mr. Vedant Bende
                              for the Petitioner.
                              Mr. Shaikh Nasir Masih for Respondent No.1.
                              Mr. R.V. Dighe i/b. Mr. A.S. Rao for Respondent No.4.
                                                                ***

                              Husen                                 1
                                                     WP-6226-2011 (J) C2.doc




                                  CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
                             RESERVED ON : 29th JULY, 2026
                           PRONOUNCED ON : 9th SEPTEMBER, 2026

JUDGMENT :

1.      This petition is filed invoking Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India challenging the Judgment and Order dated 28/
29-06-2011 passed in Appeal No. 7 of 2010 by Presiding Officer,
Addl. School Tribunal, Navi Mumbai by which the appeal filed by
Respondent No. 1 is allowed and her supersession dated 14.06.1995
is quashed and set aside and present Respondent Nos. 2 and 3
(Management and School) are directed to reinstate the Respondent
No. 1 to the post of Headmistress w.e.f. 14.06.1995 and to pay her
salary, dues including back wages, emoluments etc.

2.      At this stage itself it is necessary to mention that the petition
was argued by the Petitioner and supported by learned Advocate for
the Respondent No. 2-Management.

                                SUBMISSIONS

3.      Learned counsel Mr. Limaye appearing for the Petitioner
submitted as under.

3.1.    That initially appointment of Respondent No.1 directly as
Headmistress itself was illegal and was never sanctioned by the
concerned Administrative Officer (‘AO’, for short) of Kalyan Dombivli
Mahanagar Palika Shikshan Mandal.



Husen                                  2
                                                      WP-6226-2011 (J) C2.doc




3.2     That   Respondent    No.1   was       not   holding      appropriate
qualification (D. Ed) at the relevant time.

3.3     That the charge was given by Respondent No. 1 to the
Petitioner as Headmistress on 26.12.1994 and thereafter the
Petitioner was appointed as Headmistress on 14.06.1995, after
completing 5 years experience. That therefore, the appointment/
promotion of the Petitioner is in accordance with provisions of the
Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service)
Regulation Act, 1977 & Rules, 1981 (‘the said Act’ and ‘the said Rules’
for short).

3.4.    That Respondent No.1 acquired necessary qualification of D.
Ed. in February 1996 and therefore it cannot be said that she was
superseded.

3.5.    That after handing over charge of Headmistress in December
1994, Respondent No.1 kept working as Assistant Teacher under
protest till she was terminated and which termination was set aside
later on and therefore Respondent No.1 was only working as
Assistant Teacher and her appointment on the post of Headmistress
was never approved.

3.6.    That Respondent No.1 has retired on 30.06.2012 as Assistant
Teacher and even the Petitioner has retired as Headmistress on
30.04.2026.

3.7.    That in the year 1995, when the alleged supersession had
taken place, there existed gray area as to which is appropriate


Husen                                 3
                                                     WP-6226-2011 (J) C2.doc




qualification (D.Ed. or B.Ed.) for appointment as Primary Teacher
and this issue got resolved only in May 2004, when this Court held
that teachers qualified as B.Ed. can be appointed in the primary
schools upto 25% of posts of teachers for 5th to 7th standards. He
submitted that therefore Respondent No.1 cannot claim that in June
1995 there was supersession inasmuch as she completed D.Ed. course
only in February 1996 and therefore she was and is junior to the
Petitioner.

3.8.    Lastly he submitted that on the aspect of delay, the appeal filed
by Respondent No.1 before School Tribunal was hopelessly delayed
because the alleged supersession of June 1995 is challenged in 2010
after a gap of 15 years and the only explanation offered is pendency
of her earlier litigation and pendency of Writ Petition No. 3323 of
2002 and subsequent pendency of the issue in Supreme Court.

3.9. That there is no explanation as to why Respondent No.1 kept
mum from 1995 to 2002 when she filed writ petition with other
petitions including that of association. That even after the issue was
settled in 2007 by Hon'ble Supreme Court, there is no explanation
why she has waited for a period of about 3 years thereafter, till the
filing of the appeal on 23.02.2010.

3.10 He relied on the Judgment of Londhe Prakash Bhagwan Vs.
Dattatraya Eknath Mane and Others, (2013) 10 SCC 627 in support
of his submission that in case of supersession even if limitation is not
provided under the said Act, the challenge must be raised within
reasonable time. Relying on State of Maharashtra and Others Vs.


Husen                                  4
                                                    WP-6226-2011 (J) C2.doc




Tukaram Tryambak Chaudhari and Others (2007) 9 SCC 201, he
submitted that pending issue was only in respect of pay-parity and
there was no reason to wait for such a long time.

4.      Respondent No. 1 has filed Affidavit in Reply affirmed on
02.09.2011 contending inter-alia as under.

4.1.    That she was     M.A. B.Ed. qualified and after following due
process of law, she was appointed as Headmistress on a clear and
vacant    post   under     appointment    orders    dated     01.08.1989,
06.06.1990, 10.06.1991 and 07.06.1992.

4.2.    That on 25.11.1992, the appointment of Respondent No.1 as
Headmistress, was not approved by the concerned AO on the ground
that Respondent No.1 was qualified as M.A. B.Ed. But, for the post of
primary teacher required qualification was D.Ed. That on issue being
raised with Dy. Director of Education and despite his order, the AO
did not sanction appointment of Respondent No.1 as Headmistress.

4.3.    That the Respondent-Management asked Respondent No.1 to
complete D.Ed. course, which she successfully completed on
26.02.1996. However, meanwhile on 24.12.1994, the Petitioner was
promoted to the post of Headmistress under conditional appointment
letter with clear understanding that Petitioner’s appointment is
subject to completion of D.Ed. qualification and sanction to
Respondent No.1. That at the relevant time, the Petitioner had not
completed experience of 5 years required for promotion as
Headmistress.



Husen                                 5
                                                  WP-6226-2011 (J) C2.doc




4.4.    That she was working as Assistant Teacher under protest and
on 14.06.1995, when the Petitioner was given post of Headmistress,
it amounted to supersession of Respondent No.1.

4.5.    That despite Respondent No. 1 being senior to the Petitioner
and despite completing D.Ed. Course, the Petitioner did not allow the
Respondent No. 1 to join the duty. That the Respondent-Management
informed Respondent No.1 that she will be allowed to sign on muster
only if she forgoes her claim of Headmistress. However, Respondent
No.1 on 01.03.1996 wrote a letter to the President of the
Management asking for Headmistress post and immediately thereon,
the services of Respondent No. 1 were terminated. Aggrieved by the
order of termination, Respondent No.1 preferred Appeal No.12 of
1996 before the School Tribunal, which stayed the order of
termination and subsequently allowed the appeal by Order dated
24.09.2003.

4.6     That in the meantime, the Respondent No.1 along with the
Association of Teachers filed Writ Petition No. 3323 of 2002 raising
the issue in respect of pay scale of B. Ed. Teachers appointed as
Primary Teachers. A prayer was made in the petition seeking
direction that Teachers holding B. Ed. qualification who are teaching
in primary section having 5 th to 7th standard, within 25% of total
strength of teachers, be treated as trained graduate qualified
teachers. That on 06.05.2004, the said petition was allowed by this
Court.

4.7.    That when the Management was asked to implement the order


Husen                                6
                                                   WP-6226-2011 (J) C2.doc




of the Hon'ble High Court, it kept mum and then the government had
challenged the decision of the High Court in the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, but ultimately on 20.02.2007, the order of the High Court was
confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in          State Vs. Tukaram
(supra).

4.8.     That when the matter was pending in Supreme Court, present
Petitioner and AO declared Respondent No.1 as surplus and her
service book was spoiled. However, after order of Deputy Director of
Education dated 02.12.2009 the Petitioner (being Headmistress) was
directed to delete unnecessary remarks against Respondent No.1 in
service book and to prepare new service book. That the Petitioner is
not ready to sign the new service book. That again legal notice was
given by Respondent No.1, but no action was taken. So ultimately in
2010, the Respondent No.1 filed the present Appeal No. 7 of 2010
challenging the supersession dated 14.06.1995.

4.9.     That despite various correspondence by Respondent No.1 and
the Teacher's Association, the post of Headmistress was not given to
Respondent No.1.

4.10. That the pendency of the earlier Appeal No. 12 of 1996 up to
24.09.2003 (challenging termination) and thereafter pendency of
WP/3323/2002 filed by the Association regarding the issue of B. Ed.
qualification and subsequent pendency of SLP and thereafter
pursuing the matter further has resulted in wait till 2010 when
appeal was filed.

5.      Mr. Shaikh appearing for Respondent No.1 submitted as under.

Husen                                 7
                                                   WP-6226-2011 (J) C2.doc




5.1. That Respondent No. 1 was appointed as a Headmistress within
the permissible ratio of 3:1, as permitted for primary schools having
5th to 7th standard. That since her appointment itself was legal, it
should have been approved by the AO.

5.2. That being subsequently appointed, the Petitioner was junior to
Respondent No. 1.

5.3. That Respondent No. 1 was given to understand by the
Management that after securing qualification of D.Ed., she will be
given post of Headmistress and therefore, she was hopeful.

5.4. That documents on record indicate that she was pursuing the
matter with Management as well as with the Education Authorities,
however, they did not pay any attention, and Respondent No.1
continued to work without prejudice to her rights and contentions.

5.5. That the larger issue involved was subject matter of Writ Petition
No. 3323 of 2002 filed by the Teachers Association in which
Respondent No. 1 was also party and said issue was decided
ultimately on 06.05.2004 in the case of Tukaram Tryambak
Chaudhari V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors [Bombay High Court
WP/4632/1992] along with connected petitions. That the Division
Bench of this Court held that, teachers who possess BA. B.Ed
qualification are duly qualified and entitled to receive salary as
trained teachers. He submitted that this decision was then carried by
the State Government in Hon'ble Supreme Court, which remained
pending till 20.02.2007 when Hon'ble Supreme Court confirmed the
view taken by the High Court. He submitted that therefore, till

Husen                                8
                                                       WP-6226-2011 (J) C2.doc




February 2007, the issue was under consideration and therefore, the
appeal was not filed by Respondent No. 1 in the Tribunal.

5.6. That thereafter, till filing of the appeal in the year 2010, the
Respondent No. 1 was continuously following up with the
Management as well as Education Authorities for grant of
appropriate pay-scale as well as about seniority. That these
circumstances are considered by the Tribunal and appeal has been
entertained. Hence no interference is required.

5.7 He relied on following judgments and Government Resolution
(GR) in support of his case.

(i)     Shri Tukaram Tryambak Chaudhari V/s. State of Maharashtra
        and Ors. in Writ Petition No.4632 of 1999, along with
        other petitions Judgment dated 06.05.2004 (Coram: F. I.
        Rebello and N. H. Patil J.J.).
(ii)    State of Maharashtra and Ors. V/s. Tukaram Tryambak
        Chaudhari and Ors. (2007)9 SCC 201.
(iii) GR dated 12.11.2001 issued after the judgment of Full Bench of
      this Court in Jayashree Sunil Chavan V/s. State of Maharashtra
      and Ors. (2000) 3 Mh. L.J. 605 (FB).



                         REASONS AND CONCLUSION

6.      I have considered the rival contentions and perused the record.

7.      At the outset, it is material to note that the Petitioner as well as
Respondent-Management had taken a clear stand in the written
statement that the appeal filed by Respondent No.1 was time barred.
The case of the Petitioner as well as the Management that

Husen                                   9
                                                    WP-6226-2011 (J) C2.doc




Respondent No.1 was not having requisite qualification on the date of
her appointment directly as Headmistress on 05.08.1989 requires
serious consideration. It is not in dispute that Respondent No.1 was
directly appointed as Headmistress and at that time, she was holding
qualification of B.Ed. which was not the requisite qualification. It is
also material to note that the concerned AO never granted approval
to the appointment of Respondent No.1 as Headmistress. Therefore,
the Petitioner and Management are justified in contending that such
appointment of Respondent No.1 as Headmistress (which was
admittedly not as per qualification required as well as which was not
approved at the relevant time) will not give any seniority to
Respondent No.1.

8.      At this stage itself, it is material to note that the Respondent
No.1 acquired necessary qualification of D.Ed. on 26.02.1996, which
was after the appointment of Petitioner as Headmistress on
14.06.1995. Petitioner’s appointment was with approval of the AO
and it was after completing 5 years experience as required under the
said Rules. It is important to bear in mind that at the relevant time,
the issue of B.Ed. Assistant teachers being treated at par with D.Ed.
Assistant teachers in primary schools with 5 th to 7th standard was not
even raised.

9.      Learned counsel for the Petitioner is justified in contending
that at the relevant time in June 1995, required qualification was
D.Ed. and not B.Ed. Also, the issue regarding graduate teachers with
B.Ed. being treated at par with D.Ed. was not clear and there was
ambiguity. The issue was first time raised before Full Bench of this

Husen                                 10
                                                       WP-6226-2011 (J) C2.doc




Court in Jayashree Sunil Chavan (Supra).

10.     Thereafter, in a batch of petitions including WP/3323/2002
filed by Respondent No. 1, final order was passed by this Court on
06.05.2004 and it was duly confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
on 20.02.2007.

11.     Perusal of Jayashree Sunil Chavan (Supra) indicates that the
issue involved before the Full Bench was on a reference of question
“whether the qualification of B.Ed is requisite qualification for
teaching the students in primary school ?”. The Full Bench considered
the provisions of the said Act and the said Rules and also various
earlier Judgments and held that “D.Ed. is the requisite minimum
qualification for teaching students in primary schools and the B.Ed.
qualification cannot be treated as equivalent thereto”.

12.     Pursuant to this view taken by the Full Bench of this Court, the
Government of Maharashtra, Education Department issued GR dated
12.11.2001, directing that such of the B.Ed. degree holder teachers,
who have been appointed and approved prior to date of the Full
Bench judgment (05.05.2000), be treated and continued as untrained
primary     teachers   and   such   teachers   shall     be     eligible         for
correspondence D.Ed. Course.

13.     Therefore, it is clear that pursuant to the view taken by Full
Bench in Jayashree Sunil Chavan (Supra) by issuing specific GR,
B.Ed. holder teachers appointed in primary school were treated as
untrained primary teachers.



Husen                                 11
                                                      WP-6226-2011 (J) C2.doc




14.     Therefore, in the year 1989, when the Respondent No. 1 was
appointed, she did not have requisite qualification. Her appointment
directly as Headmistress was not approved. On 14.06.1995, when
Petitioner was appointed as Headmistress, she had completed 5 years
as per applicable Rules. It is important to note that on 14.06.1995 the
decision, either about eligibility or pay-parity had not come. Initially
in May, 2000, Full Bench held in Jayashree Sunil Chavan (Supra) that
D.Ed. is the requisite qualification for teaching students in primary
schools and B.Ed. qualification cannot be treated as equivalent
thereto. Therefore even under full bench decision, Respondent No. 1
was not eligible. First time, on 06.05.2004, the Division Bench in
Tukaram V/s. State (Supra) held that teachers like Respondent No. 1
could be appointed and paid trained graduate pay-scale. But by this
time, much water had flown under the bridge for Respondent No.1.

15.     So, let us now turn to the aspect of limitation.

16.     The Tribunal in paragraph No. 18 has initially observed that
the issue of limitation is not raised or framed. This is factually
incorrect. As already observed above, in the initial paragraphs of the
reply filed by the Petitioner and the school issue of limitation was
clearly raised. The Tribunal has simply stated that since the appeal is
against an order of supersession, there is no limitation provided and
since the issue related to the matter was pending in High Court and
Supreme Court, the appeal is filed within reasonable time. This
finding, to say the least, is perverse. In Londhe Vs. Dattatraya
(Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court Court, while considering the
aspect of limitation under the said Act and Rules, has clarified that

Husen                                  12
                                                    WP-6226-2011 (J) C2.doc




even if assuming that there is no limitation provided or prescribed in
statute, aggrieved person cannot be permitted to come before the
Court at his sweet will and appeal/petition must be filed within
reasonable time. In the present case, the impugned action of
supersession has taken place on 14.06.1995. From 1996 till 2003,
Respondent No.1 was prosecuting Appeal No. 12 of 1996, which was
filed against ‘otherwise termination’ of Respondent No. 1. Therefore,
pendency of Appeal No. 12 of 1996 filed by Respondent No.1 cannot
help her because said appeal was only challenging her ‘otherwise
termination’ and the issue of seniority was not at all agitated there.

17.     Considering these dates, it is clear that from 14.06.1995, till
2002 when the Respondent No.1 filed WP/3323/2002, the
Respondent No.1 did not take any step to challenge the alleged
supersession on 14.06.1995. This period of 7 years is not at all
explained. That apart, even after the issue was finally resolved by
Supreme Court in February 2007, there is no explanation why
Respondent No.1 did not file the appeal or challenge the supersession
till 2010. The explanation that the Respondent No.1 was in
communication with the Management and Government Authorities,
is not sufficient considering the time spent from 2007 till 2010.

18.     Assuming the argument of Mr. Shaikh that the issue of both
eligibility as well as pay-parity was pending before this Court or
Supreme Court to be correct, there is no explanation why from 1995
till 2000 [when for the first time, this issue came before Full Bench in
Jayashree Sunil Chavan (Supra)], the Respondent No. 1 did not
approach the Tribunal. Similarly, after the decision in Tukaram

Husen                                 13
                                                    WP-6226-2011 (J) C2.doc




Tryambak Chaudhari (Supra) by Hon'ble Supreme Court on
20.02.2007, there is no explanation why Respondent No. 1 waited for
a period of 3 years to file the appeal.

19.     In that view of the matter, since Respondent No.1 has not
explained the delay and has not challenged the action of supersession
for a long period of eight years initially from 1995 till 2000 and
thereafter from 2007 till 2010, the appeal could not have been
entertained. The Tribunal was not justified in entertaining the appeal
beyond reasonable time.

20.     Considering that the aspect of eligibility and seniority are
closely connected in the peculiar facts of the present case, assuming
that Respondent No. 1 was eligible to be appointed, however, since
grievance about seniority, based on eligibility is not made before the
statutory Tribunal within reasonable time, the Tribunal was not
justified in entertaining the grievance about seniority, long after
reasonable time.

21.     Therefore, the petition succeeds on the ground of delay and
laches alone. The impugned order dated 28/29.06.2011 passed in
Appeal No. 7 of 2010, is quashed and set aside. Appeal No. 7 of 2010
is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

22.     Writ Petition is partly allowed and Rule is made partly absolute
in above terms. No order as to costs.

23.     All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed
QR verifiable copy of this order.

                                               (M.M. SATHAYE, J.)

Husen                                   14