Deshmukh, J.@mdashThese are the three writ petitions among the same parties coming up for hearing. Writ Petition No. 4922 of 1997 has been filed by petitioner Abdul Jamey praying for directions to respondents to treat him as a trained teacher in the primary school and to grant approval to his appointment accordingly, with further direction to grant and release salary in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600 from 17.6.1995 and payment of arrears and also seeks a declaration of confirmation pursuant to Section 5(2) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Services) Regulation Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as "MEPS Act") and rules framed thereunder viz. The Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, (hereinafter, referred to as "MEPS Rules").
2. Petitioner appears to have been appointed by Respondent No. 5-Management in Respondent No. 6-School under an order dated 17.6.1995 in the pay-scale of Rs. 1400-2600. A proposal with regard to said appointment had been sent for approval to Respondent No. 4. In the proposal, petitioner''s name figured at serial No. 12. Petitioner complains that he is not being paid for service from 1995 and that approval to his appointment had been held back since he did not possess D. Ed. (Diploma in Education). The Petitioner claims reliefs pursuant to Government Resolutions dated 14.11.1979, 26.10.1982 and 30.1.1996 enabling appointment of trained graduate teachers. Petitioner has referred to that under Rule 6 of the MEPS Rules, minimum qualification prescribed for primary teacher is S.S.C., D.Ed under Schedule B to the MEPS Act and the Rules. It has been submitted that a higher qualification than the minimum prescribed under Schedule B for a primary teacher is not a disqualification under said Act and the Rules. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the he is graduate in Arts and also in Commerce and completed degree course in Education (Bachelor of Education -B.Ed.), approval to his appointment is being held back by respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 6-School has primary classes from 1st to 5th standard and higher primary classes from 5th to 7th standard. Petitioner further makes a grievance that Respondent No. 4, however, has been granting approvals to appointments in higher primary classes which are attached to secondary schools. He has alleged discrimination in graduate teachers who are attached to primary schools and those to secondary schools. He submits that it would be too pedantic to withhold grant of approval to his appointment saying that he is not S.S.C., D. Ed. when he is graduate and also holds B.Ed. Degree. According to him, there is no justification whatsoever for holding back approval to his appointment as a trained graduate teacher in Respondent No. 6-school.
3. The petition has been resisted by Respondent No. 4, contending that during the year 1995-96 when petitioner was appointed, sanction had been accorded to only eight posts of teachers whereas management had appointed 12, as such, petitioner''s appointment could not be approved. While petitioner was appointed, 7th standard had not been sanctioned to Respondent No. 5-school.
The appointment of the petitioner had been resisted also on the ground that he did not possess S.S.C. D. Ed. qualification and only S.S.C., D. Ed. candidate could be appointed as primary teacher. Respondent No. 4 purported to term appointment of the petitioner as illegal for his appointment had not been approved even as an untrained teacher. 12.
4. Petitioner had during pendency of Writ Petition No. 4922 of 1997, completed D. Ed. course successfully securing more than 69 per cent marks.
5. While, the petitioner had been undergoing course of Diploma in Education, Sayeeda Begum, a teacher who had been serving in Urdu Primary School run by Miliya Education Society, came to be absorbed on the post on which the petitioner had been working on the assumption that the same had been vacant. However, on realization of the mistake that the post had not been available for absorption, the order of her appointment by way of absorption came to be revoked and said Sayeeda had been directed to report back to her parent school i.e. Madarse Primary Miliya School.
6. However, a writ petition was filed by said Sayeeda before this court, bearing No. 745 of 2003 against aforesaid revocation of absorption. In said petition, Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4922 of 1997 had not been impleaded as party-Respondent No. 4. This had entailed Civil Application No. 5628 of 2003 by petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4922 of 1997 in said petition No. 745 of 2003. This Court allowed said Civil Application on 20.11.2003 and had also recalled the order of status-quo in Writ Petition No. 745 of 2003 and had further clarified that the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4922 of 1997 would be entitled to wages for the period during which the order had been in operation with a direction to said Sayeeda to report to her original school. In said writ petition No. 745 of 2003, Respondent No. 2 had opposed the claim of said Sayeeda referring to appointment of petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4922 of 1997.
7. On completion of Diploma in Education on 31.3.2004, the petitioner had been granted approval as a trained teacher by the Education Officer with effect from 31.3.2004. He was considered as an untrained teacher during the period 1.6.2003 to 3.7.2003 and as a trained teacher thereafter in the pay-scale of Rs. 4500-7000 under an order dated 31.3.2004. Subsequently, said order came to be revised on 9.6.2004 directing that the petitioner would be paid salary as trained teacher with effect from 11.1.2004. This order as well, had been subsequently further revised treating orders dated 31.3.2004 and 9.6.2004 as cancelled, holding that the petitioner would not be entitled to any arrears and would be paid salary with effect from 11.1.2004 only, as trained teacher.
8. Aggrieved by this, Writ Petition No. 6787 of 2004 has been filed by petitioner before this court. This petition was resisted by Respondent No. 4 again on the same grounds that the petitioner having not been D.Ed., his appointment had been irregular and was not eligible to be appointed as primary teacher, and as such had not been approved. Petition is also tried to be resisted on the ground that acquisition of D.Ed. had not been through authorized channel and had beyond sanctioned posts and two teachers cannot be allowed to draw salary on same post and Sayeeda Begum having been appointed in petitioner''s place, he cannot be allowed to draw salary with effect from 4.7.2004 and that there had been no proposal for petitioner''s appointment for the period from 2000-01 to 3.7.2004. It is contended that since acquisition of D.Ed. qualification being not through authorized channel, he would not be entitled to salary from 1995 to 3.7.2003 and further period during which a surplus teacher had occupied the post earlier held by petitioner, till 11.1.2004.
9. Mr. Chaukidar, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner, has at the outset submitted that his client is giving up his claim for the period prior to 1997. He has referred to an unreported judgment of this court in Writ Petition No. 3006 of 1991 (Alka Jagannath Bharati vs. State of Maharashtra and others) delivered on 3.12.1991. According to him, it has been held in the same that acquisition of higher qualification will not be a disqualification at all and as such, approval was directed to be granted to petitioner therein as a trained teacher appointed in the primary school. However, the issue had been referred to full bench since there occurred difference in views of division benches. The full bench answered the reference against the decision in Writ Petition No. 3006 of 1991.
10. Mr. Chaukidar submitted that full bench of this court in
11. Mr. Chaukidar has pointed out that the Honourable Supreme Court has ruled in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Tukaram Tryambak Chaudhari and others, 2007 (2) ALL MR 933, and others that the teachers possessing B.A. / BSc. B. Ed. qualification are duly qualified and are eligible to continue to receive salary as trained teacher and that D.Ed. is not the minimum qualification. The Supreme Court had been taken through two decisions rendered by this court, the one by full bench in Jayashree''s case (supra) and other by Division Bench in
17. Conscious of such disparity in respect of teachers who are similarly situated but were treated differently on account of their being attached to primary schools and/or secondary schools, the State Government resolved to eliminate such differences and to make provisions for trained graduate teachers to be upgraded to a higher scale to the extent of 25 % of the posts. The said Resolution consciously refers to in service graduate primary teachers who were eligible for appointment to the posts in the increased pay-scale. In fact, one of the conditions for appointment of in service graduate primary teachers to the converted post carrying the higher pay-scale was that such teacher should have obtained a degree in Arts or Science and had also obtained a degree in education, namely, B.Ed. While adopting the aforesaid Resolution, the Government was, therefore, fully aware of the fact that there were graduate teachers teaching in standards 5 to 7in the primary schools. This fact was also referred to by the Division Bench of the High Court in its judgment under appeal. It has been mentioned that one of the contentions raised on behalf of writ petitioners was that in terms of Government Resolution dated 26th October, 1982, the petitioners were entitled to be appointed and continued as trained teachers in B.Ed. scale.
18. As has been pointed out by Mr. Apte, the said Government Resolution does not appear to have been brought to the notice of the Full Bench which rendered its decision on the reference made to it on the basis of the Maharashtra Rules of 1981 in respect whereof conflicting views had been taken with regard to the eligibility of a graduate, also holding the B.Ed. degree to be appointed in a primary school. The Resolution of 1979 was dealing with a situation which was prior to the enactment of the said Rules and which contemplated the existence and appointment of graduate teachers in primary schools.
12. The Supreme Court had adverted to the arguments on behalf of Tukaram referring to that the government resolution dated 14.11.1979 had not been brought to the notice of the full bench and that the resolution, reading in correct perspective, reveals that to bring about parity between the teachers teaching to the standards from 5th to 7th attached to both, primary school as well as secondary school, 25 per cent of the posts of the teachers teaching 5th to 7th standard attached to the secondary school were entitled to enjoy benefit of pay scale of trained graduate teachers. It had been further adverted to that the said government resolution was considered and dealt with by the Division Bench of Bombay High Court in Kondiba''s case (supra). The Supreme Court was thus impelled to observe that the decision rendered by the High Court in Kondiba''s case was closer to the facts and, therefore, High Court''s decision in Tukaram''s case cannot be valid.
13. A division Bench of this Court had distinguished the position emerging from the decision of said full bench where the MEPS Act has no applicability and held that the Assistant Teacher possessing B.A. B. Ed. qualification is a trained teacher and is entitled to be appointed as Head Master. The Division Bench had held that notwithstanding the full bench decision, policy of the State government under its resolution dated 14.11.1979 was not affected by the same and further held that the policy continues to apply to primary schools run by the municipal council from 1st standard to 7th standard. The Division bench held that the Assistant Teacher who possesses B.A. B. Ed. qualification and teaches in school imparting education to to 1st to 7th standard is a trained teacher and, therefore, is entitled to be appointed as Head Master.
14. Petitioner has informed this court during the course of hearing that from 1.1.2004 to 31.11.2005, he has been paid salary as trained teacher and thereafter payment had been stopped by Respondents. The apparent reason for stoppage of salary had been cancellation of his performance in D.Ed course. Said action of the Respondents had been the subject matter of writ petition No. 815 of 2006 at petitioner''s instance which was decided on 7.12.2010 in his favour. In the interregnum, petitioner tendered resignation on 25.11.2008. The petitioner has pointed out the Government Resolution dated 11.11.2011 based on the judgment of the Apex Court in Tukaram''s case (supra) providing for approval to appointment of a trained graduate teacher and has submitted that his case is squarely covered under the same.
15. It is not in dispute that the petitioner Abdul Jamey possessed qualification as B.A./B.Com., B.Ed. while he had been appointed on 17.7.1995 in the pay-scale of Rs. 1400-2600.
16. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner does not figure in that 25 per cent posts in the cadre of primary teacher in Respondent No. 5-school. Thus, approval to petitioner''s appointment cannot be detained on the ground that to the primary teacher''s post person holding B.A. B. Ed. qualification cannot be appointed. The resistance to approval on that count is unsustainable. Petitioner''s case will have to be considered for approval from the date on which his name is eligible to be included in the sanctioned post to the school according to his seniority in the same. The petitioner, from that date onwards would be entitled to receive salary according to pay-scale prescribed for said post.
17. The position thus emerges that pursuant to said decision, teacher possessing bachelor''s degree along with Bachelor in Education would be considered to be duly qualified and would be entitled to be considered as a trained teacher.
18. Taking stock of aforesaid situation, it would be apparent that approval to petitioner''s appointment as a trained teacher cannot be declined for the reasons contained in the replies filed in Writ Petitions No. 4922 of 1997 and 6787 of 2004 having regard to the decision of the Apex Court in Tukaram''s case (supra). Respondent No. 4 has purported to refuse approval to appointment of petitioner since he did not possess D.Ed. and also for the reason that his appointment had been beyond sanctioned posts.
19. Petitioner, according to the decision of the Apex Court in Tukaram''s case, all along has been qualified and eligible to be appointed as a trained teacher and refusal to accord approval to his appointment for the reason that he had not been holding the D.Ed. is thus rendered unsustainable. Petitioner will have to be considered entitled to appointment as trained teacher from the date on which accommodation to his appointment would be available and, accordingly, his salary will have to be determined and paid since respondents contend that sanctioned post was not available when petitioner had been appointed.
20. We deem it appropriate for said exercise, the matter shall be considered by the Education Officer-Respondent No. 2 in Writ Petition No. 6787 of 2004. We, therefore, direct, the Education Officer shall consider the claim of the petitioner Abdul Jamey for salary as a graduate trained teacher with effect from the date on which sanctioned post would be available to accommodate him and his appointment be so approved. We further direct that the petitioner be paid all the emoluments accordingly with effect from the date of approval so determined to the date of acceptance of his resignation and all other consequential monetary benefits flowing therefrom. Writ Petitions No. 4922 of 1997 and 6787 of 2004 are thus allowed in aforesaid terms. Rule made absolute, accordingly. No costs.
