Mrs. Indrayani M. Koparkar

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5935 OF 2009 Smt.Vijaya Arvind Kurne. ..Petitioner. Versus Smt.Jyoti Pramod Nigudkar, The President / Secretary, Suvidya Prasarak Sangh. The Head Mistress, S.P.S.'s Suvidyalaya. The Education Inspector, Brihanmumbai (West Zone), Mumbai. The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondents. Mr.S.V. Pitre, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Seema Sarnaik, Advocate i/b. Ameya Tamhane, Advocate for respondent No.1. Ms.Indrayani M. Koparkar, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 & 3. Mr.C.I. Khemani, A.G.P., for the Respondent - State. ... ... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ DATED : 23rd JULY, 2009. P.C. :- Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioner, who belongs to Scheduled Caste, was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in 1981 in the school run by respondent No.1. She did her B.A. In 1990 and B.Ed. In 1991 and thus entered in category "C" in 1991. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Head Mistress w.e.f. 20.6.2007. Respondent No.1 challenged the promotion of the present petitioner before the School Tribunal. By order dated 30th June, 2009, the appeal filed by respondent No.1 came to be allowed. Respondent No.2 – Management was directed to promote respondent No.1 to the post of Head Mistress in place of the present petitioner from the date of the order. Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition. A few admitted facts are as under : Respondent No.1 is from open category. She was appointed as an Assistant Teacher w.e.f. 2.7.1984 in category "C" in one of the schools run by respondent No.2 – Management. Respondent No.1 did her B.Ed. in 1979 and acquired M.A. Degree in the year 1982. Hence, on her appointment, she was placed in category "C". Respondent No.1 thereafter came to be appointed to the post of Assistant Head Mistress in Suvidyalaya w.e.f. 1.8.2008. It is an admitted fact that respondent No.2 runs three schools namely (1) S.P.S's Suvidyalaya, Borivali (West), (2) S.P.S.'s Mangubhai Dattani Vidyalaya, Borivali (East), and (3) S.P.S.'s Manohar Hariram Chogale Vidyalaya, Borivali (West). There are three posts of Head Mistress and two posts of Assistant Head Mistress in the institutions run by respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 challenged the grant of promotion to the petitioner as Head Mistress on the ground that there were three posts of Head Master in the schools run by respondent No.2. Out of the three posts, two posts were occupied by Open Category and one post was occupied by reserved category candidate i.e. the present petitioner. The case of respondent No.1 is that as there were three posts and the petitioner being from the reserved category was appointed to one of the said posts, the reservation amounted to 33% which was against the provisions of the M.E.P.S. Act, 1987 and the Rules framed thereunder. The contention of respondent No.1 is that as per Rule 9(10)(A) of the M.E.P.S. Act there could only be 24% reservation in any institution and as this reservation had been exceeded there were violation of Rule 9(10)(A) and hence it was prayed that the promotion of the petitioner be set-aside and respondent No.1 be appointed as Head Mistress as she was first in the seniority list. The case of the Management is that one Mr.Manohar Waradkar was promoted to the post of Head Master. He belonged to Scheduled Caste. When vacancy arose in the post of Mr.Manohar Waradkar, the present petitioner who also belongs to S.C. was promoted to the post as per roster. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that if at all respondent No.1 was aggrieved by the order of promotion of the petitioner on 20.6.2007, it ought to have been immediately challenged by respondent No.1. He submitted that as the cause of action arose on 20.6.2007, it ought to have been challenged by respondent No.1 immediately thereafter. However, it was challenged by respondent No.1 by filing appeal on 1st January, 2009. As the petitioner was promoted to the post of Head Mistress on 20.6.2007 and the said promotion came to be challenged by respondent No.1 only in January, 2009, it is submitted that there is an inordinate delay on the part of respondent No.1 in challenging the order. He submitted that there was no explanation for this inordinate delay. Hence on the ground of delay itself the complaint ought to have been dismissed. As far as the aspect of delay is concerned, from the seniority list as on 1.8.2006, which is not disputed by any of the parties, it is seen that Mr.S.K. Khillare was the senior most and respondent No.1 was at Sr.No.2, whereas the petitioner was at Sr.No.22. As respondent No.1 was not the senior most teacher and as Mr.Khillare was the senior most teacher when the petitioner came to be promoted on 20.6.2007, respondent No.1 could not have challenged the promotion of the petitioner. As at that point of time, there was no possibility of appointing respondent No.1 to the post of Head in the place of the petitioner as respondent No.1 was not the senior most teacher in category "C" at that time. At that stage only Mr.Khillare could have challenged promotion of the petitioner. Hence, on 20.6.2007 when the petitioner came to be promoted, it could not be said that respondent No.1 was an aggrieved party as she was not the senior most and hence there was no question of respondent No.1 being promoted as head. Thus, there was no question of respondent No.1 challenging the promotion of the petitioner at that stage and it is only when she became eligible she has filed an appeal. As stated earlier, the main contention of respondent No.1 is that by promoting the petitioner, the reservation exceeded 24% which is in violation of Rule 9(10) (A) and hence the petitioner could not have been appointed to the post of Head. The learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that admittedly respondent No.2 runs three schools and there are three posts of Head and two posts of Assistant Head in the three schools, hence, if the three posts of Head and two posts of Assistant Head are taken together then in that case Rule 9(10)(A) which provides for 24% reservation is not exceeded. As far as this aspect is concerned, this Court (Nagpur Bench) in the decision dated 15.2.2007 in Writ Petition No.4723 of 2005 held that the post of Head Master and Assistant Head Master are different posts and the same cannot be clubbed together for adjudication of 24% roster. This decision has been considered by the Tribunal while deciding the dispute. In the case of R.S. Garg Vs. State of U.P. and ors. (2006) 6 Supreme Court Cases 430 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under : "40. We are not concerned with the reasonableness or otherwise of the percentage of reservation. 21% of the posts have been reserved for the Scheduled Tribe (sic Caste) candidates by the State itself. It, thus, cannot exceed the quota. It is not disputed that in the event of any conflict between the percentage of reservation and the roster, the former shall prevail. Thus, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the roster to fill up the posts by reserved category candidates, after every four posts, in our considered opinion does not meet the constitutional requirements." 12.In view of the above observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we have to see the percentage of reservation for the post of Head under the M.E.P.S. Act and Rules. Rule 9(10) deals with reservation of the post in the cadres of Head and Assistant Heads in private schools. As per this rule, Management shall reserve 24% of total number of posts of Heads and Assistant Heads for the members of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Caste converts to Buddhism, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes and Nomadic Tribes. As per this rule, only 24% posts can be reserved in the cadre of Heads and Assistant Heads. Undisputedly there are only three posts of Head in the respondent institute, therefore, if one post is given to the candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste then it would exceed the limit of 24% prescribed under the law. If one post out of three posts goes to reserved category candidate, then reservation would amount to 33% which is not permissible under law. 13.The learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a circular dated 5th May, 2009 wherein it is stated that reservation of 24% is increased to 33%. On perusal of the said circular, it is seen that it is to take effect on 8.10.2008, whereas the promotion of the petitioner took place on 20.6.2007. In such case, the said circular would be of no help to the petitioner. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that in the pleading before the lower Court, no such ground has been taken by the petitioner that reservation of 33% would apply and in such case as there are three posts the petitioner can be appointed in a reserved post. 14.The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is senior to respondent No.1 as the petitioner was appointed in 1981 and respondent No.1 was appointed in 1984. According to him, the Tribunal erroneously held that respondent No.1 is senior to the petitioner on the basis of the date on which the petitioner and respondent No.1 became qualified to be appointed to the post of Assistant Teacher relying on the decision of this Court in the case of Shri Vaijanath s/o. Tatyarao Shinde Vs. The Secretary, Marathwada Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Aurangabad & Ors. reported in 2006(6) ALL MR 823. He submitted that the decision would not be applicable to the facts of the present case as the said decision covers cases relating to Rule 3(1)(a), whereas the case of the petitioner would fall under Rule 3(1)(b). To my mind the fact that the appointment under Rule 3(1)(a) relates to appointment in primary school and the fact that the appointments under Rule 3(1)(b) relates to appointment in Secondary School would not make any difference because the same ratio would apply. If this ratio is taken into consideration, it is seen that the respondent was appointed in 1984 as Assistant Teacher at that time, she was fully qualified to hold the post as she had the qualification of B.Ed and M.A. on the date of her appointment, whereas the petitioner though appointed in 1981 at that time she did not hold B.A. or B.Ed. qualification. She acquired the qualification of B.A. in 1990 and B.Ed. in the year, 1991. In such case, her seniority can only be counted from the date that she became eligible for the post. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly held that the seniority cannot be counted from the date of initial appointment, but, it would be counted from the date that a person acquires the requisite qualification. Moreover, it is seen that the seniority list in which respondent No.1 was shown at Sr.No.2 and petitioner at Sr.No.22 was not challenged by the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the petitioner was at Sr.No.22, the said seniority list was not challenged by him because the candidates at Sr.No.1 to 21 were from Open Category and the petitioner who is at Sr.No.22 was the first candidate in S.C. Category and the petitioner was eligible for promotion as the petitioner was from SC category. 16.The learned Advocate for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Single Judge of this Court in the case of Vinayak Krishnaji Joshi (dead) by L.Rs. Nalini wd/0. Vinayak Joshi and others. Vs. Akola Education Society and others reported in 2006(2) Mh.L.J. 68 wherein while considering the provisions of the said Act and the Government Resolutions dated 17.9.1980 and 29.3.1997, it was held that where the education – society is running two schools, one at Akola and the other at Murtizapur, having two posts of Head masters, the vacancies occurring in these two posts will be required to be filled in as per roster point in use at the time of occurrence of such vacancy and by rotation. Thus, the post of Head Master in either school may be reserved as per the roster point when vacancy arises, the cut-off date being 3.6.1977. It was further observed that the Apex Court in Prabhash Chan Jain vs. State of Haryana and others, 1996(8) SCC 105 , had rejected the contention that whenever there are two posts, same cannot be filled by applying the reservation policy and had held that it is possible to implement the roster even in such circumstances. Reliance was placed on para 8 of the said decision. While arriving at the said finding, and more particularly to the observation by the Apex Court in the said para to the effect that "However, while filling the posts, it is the vacancies which are to be taken into consideration and these vacancies have to be filled in, according to roster points". However, it is seen that this issue has been considered by the Full Bench of this Court and the decision of the learned Single Judge in Vinayak Joshi has been considered by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of New English High School Association, Nagpur and another Vs. Baldev s/o. Fakira Ade and another reported in 2006(6) Mh.L.J. 882 . After considering the decision, the Full Bench observed that "in Prabhash Chan Jain's case (supra) the Apex Court had not dealt with the issue about the applicability of roster on consideration of the percentage of reservation.". Thereafter the Full Bench held that "26. If out of two posts, one post is reserved by applying the roster, it would obviously exceed 24%. Besides, the reservation is not 24% in favour of any one particular category. The maximum reservation is in favour of the Scheduled Castes which is to the extent of 13%, whereas the minimum is 4% in case of the Denotified and the Nomadic Tribes. As rightly submitted by the learned Advocate Shri A.D. Mohgaonkar, if the reservation in the categories of Denotified and Nomadic Tribes is considered as one unit, it would consist of 4% i.e. 8 out of 100. If there are only two posts, and one of them is specified for reservation in favour of the Denotified Tribes or the Nomadic Tribes, who are entitled for reservation to the extent of only 8 out of 100, it would virtually amount to granting reservation by 42% in excess of the statutory entitlement in favour of the said category, which is not permissible and it would be in excess of the reservation under the statutory provision. Similar is the case in relation to the Scheduled Castes which is entitled for 13% reservation. In other words, 26 out of 100 and even reservation of one post would be in excess of total reservation of 24%. Undoubtedly, the Constitution mandates implementation of reservation policy. However, at the same time, it assures opportunities to all the open class category candidates. The implementation of the reservation policy should not lead to absurd result. The application of reservation percentage has to be with reference to the number of posts. It is always to be remembered that the reservation percentage is to be applied and the 50 point roster is to be followed taking into consideration the total number of posts in a cadre and at the same time care has to be taken that other category candidates are not prejudiced in the sense that the statutorily recognized reservation percentage does not exceed while implementing the reservation policy. Undisputedly, the relevant rule requires 24% of reservation out of which 13% for the S.C., 7% for the S.T. and 4% for the D.T./N.T. Considering the 24% reservation, if one applies the 50 point roster, it would result in reservation in excess of the statutorily specified percentage. In a cadre comprising of three posts with 24% reservation rule, if one applies the 50 point roster, then the reservation even in respect of one post would exceed 24% reservation. One-third cannot be equated to 24%. It is settled law that the reservation cannot be allowed to exceed the percentage prescribed for reservation as it would result in injustice to the candidates falling outside the reservation category. Considering the same, we are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Division Bench in Somsing's case that 24% reservation can be applicable only in cases where there are minimum of four posts in a cadre and not otherwise." 18.In view of the above facts and in view of this decision, as the cadre consists of three posts of Head Master and total percentage of reservation at that time was only 24%, in such case, there could not have been any reservation and only in case if there were four posts then one post could have been filled in by a candidate from reserved category. Such is not the case in the present matter. 19.In view of the above facts , the decision of the School Tribunal, Mumbai dated 30.6.2009 is just, legal and proper. No interference is called for. Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. At this stage, the learned Advocate for the petitioner made oral request for stay of this order. Request is rejected. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]