CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION v. The Secretary

2. The brief facts in the present case are that the petitioner has commenced her teaching career in 1971 as : 2 : an Assistant Teacher in G.B. Wader High School, Pali District, Raigad with Sudhagad Education Society. Thereafter the petitioner joined a school run by the management of the Adarsh Shikshan Mandali known as Abhinav Vidyalaya High School, Pune on 12.6.1978. She continued to work in that school till the post of Assistant Headmistress fell vacant in the year 2000. Respondent No.1 was appointed to the post of Assistant Headmistress as she was the seniormost teacher qualified for that post. Aggrieved by the decision of Respondent Nos.1 and 2, appointing Respondent No.3 to the post of Assistant Headmistress, the petitioner filed an appeal before the School Tribunal. She contended in her appeal that her seniority should be calculated bearing in mind the service rendered in the school run by Sudhagad Education Society. The Tribunal after considering the provisions of Note 5 of Schedule F has dismissed the appeal.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that an experienced teacher is required to be appointed as Assistant Headmaster and, therefore, the experience that the petitioner had gained while working with Sudhagad Education Society should be clubbed together with the service rendered by the petitioner in Respondent No.1 society. He further submits that Note 5 of Schedule F should be interpreted to mean that the : 3 : total continuous service rendered by a person in a particular cadre in any school or junior college has to be taken into consideration while drawing up the seniority list, irrespective of whether the service was rendered under the same management. These submissions of the learned Counsel, in my opinion, cannot be countenanced.

4. An assistant teacher who is the seniormost and qualified shall be appointed as an assistant head as provided under the MEPS Act and Rules. The qualifications for being appointed as head of the school shall mutatis mutandis apply to the post of assistant head and supervisor. The qualifications required for being appointed as a head of the school have been stipulated in Rule 3. It is not disputed that the petitioner did have the qualifications. However, she was not the seniormost teacher. Under Rule 12 of the MEPS rules it is incumbent for the management to prepare and maintain a seniority list of teaching staff including headmaster and assistant head as also of the non-teaching staff in the school in accordance with the guidelines laid down in schedule F. Schedule F indicates the manner in which the seniority list is to be prepared. When a management runs more than one school, as in the present case, the seniority list is to be prepared of all the teachers working in such an : 4 : institution. A combined seniority list is to be prepared of persons working in a particular cadre in all the schools. Continuous service rendered by such persons in a particular cadre in any school of that management has to be considered for the purpose of seniority and for the purpose of promotion. Note 5 of Schedule F reads as under: "Note 5: Where a management runs more than one school and where Junior College classes are or are not attached to any one or more of such schools, the seniority list for a particular cadre shall be a combined seniority list of all persons in that cadre working in all the schools (excluding night schools, if any), or Junior College classes attached to schools of the Management. The total continuous service rendered by the persons in a particular cadre in any school or Junior College class shall be taken into consideration for the purpose of seniority and for the purpose of promotion."

5. Thus, it is very clear that the service rendered by the teacher with some other management cannot be clubbed together with the service rendered with the present management. Although the teacher who is to be appointed as a headmistress must be experienced, she must also be the seniormost teacher. The word ‘any’ in the latter part of Note 5 cannot mean a school run by ‘any’ managemnt. The latter part of the note cannot be read disjunctively from the first part of Note 5 as sought to be done by Counsel for the Petitioner. Both parts of Note 5 must be read together. A purposive : 5 : interpretation of Note 5 of Schedule F would be that a combined seniority list of the cadres of all the schools run by a particular management must be drawn up by computing together the service rendered by the employee with each school run by that management in which he/she has worked. In my view, therefore, there is no error committed by the Tribunal and the petition deserves to be dismissed.