Bombay High Court

VYANKAT BABURAO BANSODEversusSHRIWARDHAN TALUKA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK AND SAHHAYAK MANDAL AND ORS.

Decided: 25 August 2026
Disposal: Dismissed

Holding

The petition is dismissed because the petitioner did not satisfy the ten‑year service requirement for Category C eligibility, making the respondent’s promotion lawful.

Summary

Vyankat Baburao Bansode, an Arts teacher appointed in 1982 with a G.D. Art diploma, claimed seniority over Pandurang Baburao Satpute, who was appointed in 1988 with an MA B.Ed., and challenged Satpute's promotion to Headmaster as a super‑session. The petition was filed under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, 1977 and invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The High Court examined the definition of Category C in Schedule F of the 1981 Rules, the Government Resolution of 25 Nov 1988, and the requirement of ten years of service for diploma holders. It held that Bansode’s G.D. Art diploma required ten years of experience before he could be placed in Category C, which he only completed in 1992, after Satpute’s appointment. Consequently, the court found no super‑session and dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Tribunal’s order.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner’s G.D. Art diploma qualifies him for Category C without ten years of service.
How seniority should be calculated for teachers under Schedule F, Category C of the 1981 Rules.
Whether the promotion of Respondent No. 2 constitutes an illegal super‑session.
Interpretation of Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, 1977 in the context of promotion.

Legislation cited

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

Subjects

promotion
seniority
super-session
Category C
Schedule F
private school service regulations
SC reservation
diploma qualification
Articles 226 and 227
writ petition

Judgment

15 wp 7702-07 (J) C2.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally
signed by
SNEHA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SNEHA NITIN
NITIN CHAVAN
CHAVAN Date:
2026.08.27
19:36:34
WRIT PETITION NO. 7702 OF 2007
+0530

Vyankat Baburao Bansode ...Petitioner
Versus
1.Shriwardhan Taluka Shikshan Prasarak and ...Respondents
Sahayak Mandal
2. Pandurang Baburao Satpute
3. Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad,
Alibag
4. State of Maharashtra

***
Mr. K. N. Kandekar for the Petitioner.
None for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Ms. V.R. Raje, AGP for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
***
CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
DATE : 25th AUGUST, 2026

P.C. :

1. Invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India,
the Petitioner is challenging the Judgment and order dated 25.04.2007
passed by Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Pune (‘the Tribunal’ for
short) in Appeal No. 62 of 2005. By the said impugned order, the
Petitioner's appeal, challenging the alleged super-session by
appointment of Respondent No. 2 as Headmaster, was dismissed.

BACKGROUND
2. Respondent No.1 is an educational institute. The Petitioner is
holding qualification of A.T.D., G.D. Arts. The Petitioner belongs to
Scheduled Caste Category. He was appointed by Respondent No. 1 in its
school as Arts Teacher w.e.f. 14.06.1982 in a clear and permanent

Sneha Chavan 1
15 wp 7702-07 (J) C2.doc

vacancy initially on probation for 2 years. According to Petitioner, he
completed the probation period in satisfactory manner.
3. The Respondent No. 2 is also an employee of Respondent No.
1-institute, who got appointed as assistant teacher on 15.12.1988.
Admittedly, Respondent No. 2 also belongs to Schedule Caste category,
holding better educational qualification of M.A.B.Ed.
4. According to Petitioner, he is senior to Respondent No. 2 and
as such, the promotion of Respondent No. 2 to the post of Headmaster
w.e.f. 05.07.2005 amounts to super-session and therefore Petitioner
filed the said appeal Under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of
Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, 1977 (‘the said
Act’ for short). The Petitioner prayed for setting aside the promotion of
Respondent No. 2 and direction to the Respondent-institute to promote
him as Headmaster with full consequential benefits.
5. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed common written statement
(Management adopting written statement filed by Respondent No. 2).
According to them, Respondent No. 2 is also a candidate belonging to
SC category, who is appointed on 15.12.1988. However, Respondent No.
2 is having educational qualification of M. A. B.Ed. and therefore, he
was placed in category ‘C’ of Schedule ‘F’, following the guidelines
under Rule 12 the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools
(Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (‘the said Rules’ for short). They
contended that appointment of Respondent No. 2 was duly approved by
concerned Education Officer and Respondent No. 2 being senior most
SC candidate, was legally promoted to the post of Headmaster and
there is no super-session. They contended that Petitioner was not
qualified with requisite experience and as such was not entitled to
promotion.
6. The Respondent-Education Officer filed say before the

Sneha Chavan 2
15 wp 7702-07 (J) C2.doc

Tribunal, contending that the proposal of promotion of Respondent No.
2 has been approved in view of seniority list, however, the department
would abide by the decision of the Tribunal.
7. Learned Tribunal after considering the appeal on merits, held
that the Petitioner could not prove that while promoting Respondent
No. 2 his claim has been superseded. It is further held that Petitioner is
not entitled to be promoted as Headmaster in the place of Respondent
No. 2. In these circumstances, the appeal was dismissed under
impugned order dated 25.04.2007.
8. The Petitioner filed the present petition challenging the
impugned order. It was admitted on 03.03.2008. Record shows that this
Court has not granted any interim relief in favour of the Petitioner.
SUBMISSIONS
9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner relied upon a diploma
certificate awarded to the Petitioner contending inter alia that he is
holding G.D. Art diploma and therefore under relevant provision for Art
Teachers [as provided under category ‘C’ , schedule ‘F’ of the said
Rules], he being holder of diploma in G.D. Art is not required to
complete 10 years service for the purpose of seniority. He relied on
G.R.dated 25.11.1988 contending inter alia that for the purpose of
inclusion of Art Teacher in category ‘C’ (Schedule ‘F’) for the purpose of
seniority, according to said GR, it is not necessary to complete 10 years
experience and since Petitioner is appointed on 14.06.1982, and
Respondent No. 2 is appointed much later on 15.12.1988, his seniority
ought to have been counted from the date of appointment and
therefore, appointment of Respondent No. 2 w.e.f. 05.07.2005 amounts
to super-session. He also submitted that since the Petitioner has been
given ‘trained graduate scale’ from 13.06.1989, which is within 10 years
of appointment, it shows that 10 year experience requirement does not

Sneha Chavan 3
15 wp 7702-07 (J) C2.doc

apply to him for seniority. He has relied on following judgments in
support of his case.
(i) Vaijanath Tatyarao Shinde v/s. Secretary, Marathwada
Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Aurangabad & Ors. 2007(3) AIR
Bom R 793.
(ii) Mrs. Gaur Pratibha (Ms. Thakur Pratima Jagatsingh) and
Ors. v/s State of Maharashtra through Secretary, 2019(4) Bom
C.R. 100.

10. Nobody appeared for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. However,
affidavit in reply is filed by Respondent No. 2 contending inter alia that
Petitioner has educational qualification of S.S.C. Art who subsequently
acquired G.D. Arts diploma. It is contented that Respondent No. 2 is
appointed on 15.12.1988 in graduate scale as he was holding
qualification of M. A. B.Ed. and was placed in ‘C’ category w.e.f.
15.12.1988. It is contented that his appointment is duly approved by
the concerned Education Officer. Relying on Category ‘C’ of Schedule F,
Respondent No. 2 has contented that for Petitioner, completion of 10
years is necessary and even as per said GR of 25.11.1988, the Petitioner
could become eligible only after completing 10 years of experience, i.e.
on 14.06.1992. Respondent No. 2 has prayed for dismissal of the
petition.
11. Learned AGP appearing for the Respondent-State relied upon
first affidavit-in-reply dated 15.12.2007. She contented that the
Petitioner is an Assistant Teacher appointed w.e.f. 14.06.1982 and who
was appointed as Special Teacher w.e.f. 13.06.1989 in graduate scale
which was approved by the concerned Education Officer. She further
submitted that Respondent No. 2 was appointed as Assistant Teacher
w.e.f. 15.12.1988 in the graduate scale which has been approved by the

Sneha Chavan 4
15 wp 7702-07 (J) C2.doc

Education Officer on 04.03.1989. She pointed out that qualification of
Respondent No. 2 is MA B.Ed. and he also belongs to Schedule Caste
category and since there was one post vacant of Headmaster due to
retirement of the earlier incumbent, Respondent No. 2 has been
promoted as Headmaster and such promotion has been approved by the
Education Officer. She submitted that as per the roster at relevant time,
the backlog of Schedule Caste category for the post of Headmaster was
duly filled by promoting Respondent No. 2. She contended that the
Petitioner has been given trained graduate scale w.e.f. 13.06.1989 as
per GR dated 25.11.1988. However, Respondent No. 2 has been
appointed w.e.f. 15.12.1988 in the graduate scale and therefore, his
seniority will be from 15.12.1988 in ‘C’ category.
12. Relying on additional affidavit-in-reply dated 13.08.2026 filed
by Respondent No. 3-Education Officer, learned AGP contended that the
diploma certificate relied upon by the Petitioner is a purely a diploma
certificate issued by Government of Maharashtra for the students
completing diploma courses. She submitted that the said certificate is
not a degree certificate. It is pointed out that diploma is of 4 years and
it is not equivalent to full degree course and to obtain degree in Arts,
the person has to complete diploma course and thereafter apply for
degree course in Art master. It is submitted that only after completion of
Arts master course, that degree is given. It is submitted that contention
of the Petitioner that G.D. Arts is equivalent to degree is misconceived.
So far as GR dated 25.11.1988 is concerned, she pointed out that the
said GR contemplates two situations where first situation applies to
person who obtains G.D. Art certificate plus Art Master certificate and
second situation is where person obtains diploma in Art like Petitioner,
but he has to complete 10 years of experience to make him eligible to
be considered in ‘C’ category for considering seniority. Lastly it is

Sneha Chavan 5
15 wp 7702-07 (J) C2.doc

submitted that the view taken by the Tribunal is correct and no
interference is required.
REASONS AND CONCLUSION
13. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the
record.
14. At the outset it is necessary to note that both the Petitioner
and Respondent No. 2 belong to Scheduled Caste and therefore they are
at par on that parameter.
15. Rule 12 of the said Rules read with Schedule ‘F’ category ‘C’
mandates the Management to prepare and maintain a seniority list of
teaching staff including Headmaster in accordance with guidelines laid
down in Schedule F. Clause 2 of Schedule F provides for guidelines for
fixation of seniority of Teachers in secondary school (as in the present
case) and it is contemplated that for the purpose of fixation of seniority
of teachers the teacher should be categorized as Category A, B and C,
where Category C deals with holders of various degrees and diplomas.
The provision for Art Teachers in Category ‘C’ reads as under.
“Schedule ‘F’
[See rule 12]
1. xxxx
2. Guidelines for fixation of seniority of teachers in the secondary
schools, Junior Colleges of Education and Junior College classes
attached to secondary schools and Senior Colleges.
For the purpose of 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 A: xxxx
Category B: xxxx
Category C: Holders of -

Sneha Chavan 6
15 wp 7702-07 (J) C2.doc

xxxx
xxxx
For Art teachers - B.A./B.Sc./B.Com/B.F.A./ Diploma in G.D. Art with –
A.M. certificate/ A.M. Diploma/ Diploma in Art Education; OR
B.A./B.Sc./B.Com/B.F.A./ Diploma in G.D. Art, D.T.C./D.M./A.T.D., with
ten years’ service.
xxxx”
(emphasis supplied)

16. The GR dated 25.11.1988 contemplates two situations for
inclusion of name in category ‘C’ viz.
A) Degree from recognized university (including B.F.A. Arts
degree) or G.D. Art diploma plus A.M. certificate or A.M.
diploma holders teacher in secondary schools.
B) Degree from recognized university (including B.F.A. Art
degree) or G.D. Art plus D.T.C. or (D.M.) A.T.D. holders with
10 years of experience, after completing D.T.C. (D.M.), A.T.D.
respectively.

17. From the certificate relied upon by the Petitioner as well as a
clear stand taken by the Respondent-Education Officer in additional
affidavit, it is clear that the Petitioner is holding a diploma which is G.D.
Art certificate. It is also clear that the said certificate is not a degree
certificate. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner argued that the
requirement of 10 years service as provided in Category ‘C’ is only
limited to D.T.C./D.M./A.T.D. before comma and not for ‘diploma in
G.D. Art’. Bare reading of the concerned provisions for Art teachers in
category ‘C’ as reproduced above would indicate that various
degree/diplomas in the list are provided with a common requirement of
10 years service requirement at the end of that sentence. In that view of

Sneha Chavan 7
15 wp 7702-07 (J) C2.doc

the matter, I am afraid the said argument cannot be accepted.

18. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner was appointed on
14.06.1982; therefore the 10 years experience/services would complete
on 14.06.1992, which is after the appointment of Respondent No. 2 on
15.12.1988. Viewed in this light, seniority as given to Respondent No. 2
is legal and proper and can not be faulted.
19. There is one more way to look at the available material.
Admittedly, Petitioner's appointment as Special Teacher w.e.f.
13.06.1989 in ‘graduate scale’ was approved by Education Officer on
05.03.1990. As against this, the Respondent No. 2 was appointed as
Assistant Teacher w.e.f. 15.12.1988 (same scale), which has been
approved by the Education Officer on 04.03.1989. Both these dates of
appointment as well as approval in respect of Respondent No.2 are prior
to the appointment of Petitioner as a Special Teacher in graduate scale.
Therefore, even assuming that the Petitioner is eligible for graduate
scale w.e.f. 13.06.1989, still his appointment as well as approval in that
scale is after the appointment and approval of the Respondent No.2.
20. It is therefore clear that Petitioner's eligibility itself for the
inclusion in category ‘C’ has started after the eligibility of Respondent
No. 2.
21. In Vaijanath Tatyarao Shinde (Supra), the Full Bench of this
Court was considering absence of word ‘Trained’ in Rule 3(1)(a)(ii),
where it is held that, it is an unintended accidental omission and the
same has to be supplemented by having recourse to the rule of
construction. However, it is also clearly held in the said judgment that a
candidate must possess ‘requisite educational as well as training
qualification’ for consideration of promotion to the post of Headmaster.
In the present case, the educational qualification (diploma in G.D. Arts

Sneha Chavan 8
15 wp 7702-07 (J) C2.doc

in the present case) provided under Category ‘C’ itself is qualified
which mandatorily requires 10 years experience before he can be
considered as eligible. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that
the seniority must be counted from the date of initial appointment. As
such, though there is no dispute about the principle laid down in the
said judgment of Full Bench, in the peculiar facts of this case, since the
eligibility requirement itself is not met by the Petitioner, the case of
seniority cannot be accepted. Hence, the said judgment would not
advance the case of the Petitioner.
22. So far as reliance placed on Mrs. Gaur Pratibha (Supra) is
concerned, it is clearly held as under.
“118. Once, secondary teachers enter a common category from
different sources, how should their seniority be reckoned: is it from
the date of their entering and continuously officiating or from the
date of their acquiring qualification to reach that common
category?
119. The seniority must be reckoned from the date they entered
the desired category; that is, from the date they acquired the
necessary qualification, but not from the date of their entry into
service.”
(emphasis supplied)

Therefore, it is clear that the date they acquire necessary
qualification is important and in the present case the date of acquiring
qualification itself is extended with additional service of 10 years.
Therefore, even this judgment will not help the Petitioner.

23. Viewed in the light of what is observed above, when the
impugned order is perused, it is seen that the Tribunal has considered
the concerned G.R. dated 25.11.1988 as well as G.R. by which the
corrigendum dated 09.04.2003 was withdrawn. After the considering

Sneha Chavan 9
15 wp 7702-07 (J) C2.doc

the qualifications required, the Tribunal has held that the Petitioner who
is G.D. Art/A.T.D. can claim to be placed in ‘C’ category only after 10
years of experience. The dates of joining service are considered.
Qualification of Respondent No.2 and his eligibility for inclusion in ‘C’
category is also considered. Based on such consideration, a finding is
recorded that the Petitioner cannot be considered as senior to
Respondent No. 2 and as such, the act of management promoting
Respondent No. 2 cannot be faulted.
24. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and for reasons
indicated above, the Tribunal has taken the most probable view. No
perversity is found therein. There is no reason to interfere.
25. Writ petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to
costs.
26. All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed
QR verifiable copy of this order.

(M.M. SATHAYE, J.)

Sneha Chavan 10

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…