Facts
- The learned Single Bench dismissed the case on 28.9.2017 with detailed reasoning.
- An application for review was filed on 2.12.2017 and was allowed for reasons stated in the application.
- The School Tribunal dismissed the appeal on 1.1.2016, stating that the appellant did not qualify as a trained graduate at the time of their appointment in 1985.
- The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench allowed the review of the dismissed writ petition and set aside the School Tribunal’s order from 1.1.2016.
- Chagan claimed seniority as a trained graduate teacher from August 1985 based on the rules.
- Chagan contended that he should be promoted as Head Master as per the rules.
- Chagan was initially appointed on a temporary basis in July 1985 with 10 years of teaching experience and later acquired further qualifications.
- The respondent No. 4 was appointed on a regular basis in November 1988, after the post became vacant.
- The judgment of Viman Vaman Awale v. Gangadhar Makhriya Charitable Trust & Ors. was distinguished by the Tribunal due to the timing of joining the service.
- Chagan entered Category ‘C’ in Schedule ‘F’ of the Rules in 1997 and was deemed junior to respondent No. 4 who entered in 1985.
- The challenge was also against the promotions of other candidates as Assistant Head Master and Supervisors.
- The post of Secondary Teacher was claimed to be not vacant in 1985, leading to the alleged improper appointment of Madhavi as a Primary Teacher.
- Both Madhavi and Chagan were later approved for their appointments against regular vacancies in 1986.
- On 24.11.1988, Madhavi was upgraded to the High School Scale, and the vacant post of Assistant Head Master was not to be filled until further orders.
- The writ petition by Chagan challenging the promotion of Madhavi as Head Master was allowed by the Single Bench.
Also Read: Critical Analysis of Circumstantial Evidence in Arson Case
Case Title: MADHAVI Vs. CHAGAN (2020 INSC 690)
Case Number: C.A. No.-003966-003966 / 2020
