Supreme Court clarifies seniority rules for teachers in Maharashtra: Madhavi vs. Chagan (2020)

LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of seniority among teachers in secondary schools in Maharashtra.

CASE TYPE: Service Law

Case Name: Madhavi vs. Chagan & Ors.

Judgment Date: 9 December 2020

Date of the Judgment: 9 December 2020
Citation: Not Available
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta, Ajay Rastogi, JJ.
Can a teacher’s seniority be determined from the date of initial appointment or the date of acquiring higher qualifications? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a dispute between two teachers in Maharashtra. The core issue revolved around the correct interpretation of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, specifically regarding the seniority of teachers in secondary schools. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta, and Ajay Rastogi, with Justice Hemant Gupta authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The dispute arose between Madhavi and Chagan, both teachers at Shri Samarth Shikshan Sanstha. Madhavi was initially appointed on a temporary basis on 16 July 1985, possessing a graduation and B.Ed. degree. Chagan was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 1 August 1985, with a Senior Secondary Certificate and Diploma in Education. Both were later approved against regular vacancies on 5 September 1986, effective from 2 May 1986.

On 24 November 1988, Madhavi was upgraded to High School Scale, though her appointment remained temporary until the end of the academic session 1988-89. Subsequently, other teachers (respondents 5 to 7), all graduates with B.Ed. degrees, were appointed. Chagan later obtained a B.Sc. degree in 1997 and a B.Ed. degree in 1999.

The conflict escalated when Madhavi was promoted to Head Master on 31 May 2014. Chagan contested this, claiming seniority based on his initial appointment date of 1 August 1985. He argued that Madhavi’s appointment was initially temporary, and therefore, he should be considered senior and eligible for the Head Master position.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Chagan challenged Madhavi’s promotion before the School Tribunal, which dismissed his appeal on 1 January 2016. The Tribunal held that Madhavi, possessing a B.Sc. and B.Ed. at the time of her appointment on 16 July 1985, was a trained graduate teacher from the date of her appointment. Chagan, who obtained his B.Sc. in 1997 and B.Ed. in 1999, was deemed junior to Madhavi.

Chagan then filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, which was dismissed on 28 September 2017. Subsequently, Chagan filed a review application on 2 December 2017, which was allowed. The High Court, relying on the judgment in Viman Vaman Awale v. Gangadhar Makhriya Charitable Trust & Ors. [(2014) 13 SCC 219], held that seniority should be determined from the date of first appointment. The High Court distinguished the judgment in Bhawna v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [(2019) 4 SCC 300], stating that it applied to cases where the teacher did not have a B.Ed. at the time of appointment.

Legal Framework

The case is governed by The Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and The Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981.

Relevant definitions and provisions include:

• Section 2(9) of the Act defines “Head of a school” as the person in charge of academic and administrative duties.
• Section 2(18) defines “primary education.”
• Section 2(19) defines “primary school.”
• Section 2(24) defines “school.”
• Section 2(26) defines “teacher” as a member of the teaching staff, including the Head of a school.
• Section 5(1) mandates that the Management shall fill every permanent vacancy in a private school by appointing a duly qualified person.
• Section 5(5) allows the Management to fill temporary vacancies by appointing a duly qualified person.
• Rule 2(j) defines “trained graduate” as a person possessing qualifications mentioned in Schedule ‘B’.
• Rule 2(k) defines “trained teacher” as a teacher with a professional certificate, diploma, or degree recognized by the Department.
• Rule 3 (as it existed prior to amendment on 22.6.2017) specifies qualifications and appointment of Head of a school.
• Rule 6 (as it existed prior to amendment on 22.6.2017) specifies qualifications of teachers.
• Rule 12 (as it existed prior to amendment on 8.10.2018) deals with the maintenance of a seniority list.

Schedule B outlines the qualifications for primary and secondary school teachers.

• Part I specifies qualifications for primary teachers, including S.S.C. and Primary Teachers Certificate or Diploma in Education.
• Part II specifies qualifications for trained teachers in secondary schools and junior colleges, including a Bachelor’s degree in Teaching or Education.

Schedule F provides guidelines for fixing the seniority of teachers.

• Clause 1 states that seniority of primary school teachers is based on the date of joining service and continuous officiation.
• Clause 2 categorizes teachers in secondary schools and junior colleges into Categories A to E based on their qualifications.

Arguments

Arguments on behalf of Madhavi and the School:

• The school is a secondary school, not a primary school, hence Clause 1 of Schedule ‘F’ does not apply.
• Chagan was not qualified to be a trained teacher in a secondary school at the time of his initial appointment.
• Madhavi possessed the required qualifications (B.A., B.Ed.) at the time of her initial appointment.
• The judgment in Bhawna v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [(2019) 4 SCC 300] correctly applies to the facts of the case, as it deals with seniority in secondary schools.
• The judgment in Viman Vaman Awale v. Gangadhar Makhriya Charitable Trust & Ors. [(2014) 13 SCC 219] pertains to primary school teachers and is not applicable here.
• The judgment of Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench in Gaur Pratibha & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra through the Secretary & Ors. [2019 SCC OnLine Bom 597] correctly distinguished between Viman Vaman Awale and Bhawna.

Arguments on behalf of Chagan:

• The Rules apply to both primary and secondary schools.
• The principle in Viman Vaman Awale v. Gangadhar Makhriya Charitable Trust & Ors. [(2014) 13 SCC 219] should be followed, which gives seniority from the date of first appointment.
• The judgment in Bhawna v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [(2019) 4 SCC 300] is per incuriam as it did not refer to Viman Vaman Awale.
• Chagan was appointed on a regular basis on 1 August 1985, while Madhavi was appointed against a temporary vacancy on 16 July 1985.
• Viman Vaman Awale was a case of a secondary school, as per information received under the Right to Information Act.

Submissions by Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue that the Court addressed was:

1. Whether the seniority of teachers in a secondary school should be determined based on the date of initial appointment or based on their qualifications and placement in the seniority categories as per Schedule F of the Rules.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issue:

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Court relied on the following authorities in its reasoning:

• Viman Vaman Awale v. Gangadhar Makhriya Charitable Trust & Ors. [(2014) 13 SCC 219]: The Court distinguished this case, stating it only applies to primary school teachers.
• Bhawna v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [(2019) 4 SCC 300]: The Court followed this case, stating it directly applies to the present case as it deals with secondary school teachers.
• Vaijanath s/o Tatyarao Shinde v. Secretary, Marathwada Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Devgiri College Campus, Aurangabad & Ors. [2006 (6) Mh.L.J. 682]: The Court distinguished this case, stating that it pertains to the promotion of Head Masters in primary schools.
• Gaur Pratibha & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra through the Secretary & Ors. [2019 SCC OnLine Bom 597]: The Court relied on this case, which correctly distinguished between Viman Vaman Awale and Bhawna.

The Court held that the High Court erred in applying the principle of Viman Vaman Awale, which pertains to primary school teachers, to a case involving a secondary school. The Court emphasized that Bhawna is directly applicable to the present case as it deals with seniority of teachers in secondary schools.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The distinction between primary and secondary schools under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981.
• The qualifications required for teachers in secondary schools.
• The importance of the seniority categories defined in Schedule F of the Rules.
• The correct application of precedent, specifically the judgment in Bhawna v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [(2019) 4 SCC 300].
• The fact that Chagan was not a trained teacher at the time of his initial appointment.

The Court’s reasoning was as follows:

The Court rejected the argument that Bhawna was per incuriam, emphasizing that it was a judgment pertaining to seniority of teachers in a secondary school and was directly applicable to the case. The Court also clarified that the judgment in Viman Vaman Awale was specific to primary school teachers and did not apply to the facts of the present case.

The Court emphasized the importance of qualifications and the seniority categories as per Schedule ‘F’ of the Rules. It noted that Chagan was not a trained teacher at the time of his initial appointment and was rightly placed in Category ‘E’ .

The Court also noted that Madhavi was qualified for appointment as a temporary teacher as she was a graduate and also possessed a B.Ed. degree.

The Court quoted from the judgment in Bhawna:

“Undisputably, the fifth respondent was holding the qualification of BA, BEd at the time of his initial appointment dated 13 -8-1997 and became a member of Category C. At the same time, the appellant though appointed on 27 -6-1994 as an untrained teacher, having acquired the training qualification i.e. BEd on 19 -9-1997 and became a member of Category C after entry of the fifth respondent into service as a trained teacher, could not have claimed seniority in Category C over the fifth respondent prior to acquiring professional qualification (BEd) as envisaged under the scheme of the 1981 Rules as trained teacher and this what was considered by the authority who examined the inter se seniority of the appellant vis -à-vis fifth respondent under the 1981 Rules and confirmed by the High Court on dismissal of the writ petition preferred by the appellant.”

The Court also quoted from the judgment in Vaijanath:

“14. … Reading of Rule 6 and Schedule “B”, in the light of section 5, which speaks of appointment of duly qualified teachers, the conclusion is inescapable that only a trained teacher is eligible and qualified for being appointed as a primary school teacher and if this be so, it is not possible to conceive that service rendered by a teacher in a primary school who does not have the requisite qualification as laid down in Schedule “B” can be counted for the purpose of seniority. No doubt, the criteria is “seniority based on the date of joining service and continuous officiation” but it cannot be lost sight of the fact that Schedule “F”, so also, Rule 12 pre -supposes appointment of a trained primary school teacher in conformity with the eligibility and qualification prescribed in Schedule “B”. Rule 12 and Schedule “F” cannot be read in isolation without considering the mandatory provision contained in section 5 of the M.E.P.S. Act, so also, Rule 6 and Scheduled “B” of the M.E.P.S. Rules.”

The Court also noted that:

“The Scheme of the Act and the Rules makes it clear that primary and secondary schools have been treated differently in the same set of Rules.”

There was no minority opinion.

Key Takeaways

• Seniority of teachers in secondary schools in Maharashtra is determined by their qualifications and placement in the seniority categories as per Schedule F of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, not merely by the date of initial appointment.
• The judgment in Bhawna v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [(2019) 4 SCC 300] is the correct precedent for determining seniority in secondary schools.
• The judgment in Viman Vaman Awale v. Gangadhar Makhriya Charitable Trust & Ors. [(2014) 13 SCC 219] applies only to primary schools.
• Teachers must possess the required qualifications at the time of their appointment to be considered for seniority in the appropriate category.
• Untrained teachers cannot claim seniority over trained teachers in a higher category, even if they were appointed earlier.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and dismissed the writ petition filed by Chagan. The appeals filed by Madhavi and the School were allowed. The contempt petition was also dismissed.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the seniority of teachers in secondary schools in Maharashtra is determined by their qualifications and placement in the seniority categories as per Schedule F of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, and not merely by the date of initial appointment. This judgment clarifies the distinction between primary and secondary school teacher seniority rules and confirms the position of law laid down in Bhawna v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [(2019) 4 SCC 300].

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Madhavi vs. Chagan & Ors. clarifies the rules for determining seniority among teachers in secondary schools in Maharashtra. The Court emphasized that seniority is not solely based on the date of initial appointment but is also dependent on the qualifications and category of the teacher as per the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981. This ruling reinforces the importance of qualifications in determining seniority and provides clarity on the application of relevant precedents.