1 58-WP-491-2020 (C) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 491 OF 2020 Ranjit Shivaji Nalawade …...Petitioner Vs. The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary School Education Dept. & Ors. …...Respondents ... Mr. Sagar Mane with Mr. Rushikesh Jagdale and Ms. Neha Farakate, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Mahindra B. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.3 and 4. Mr. Prashant Bhavake, Advocate for the Respondent No.5. Mr. Sanjay D. Rayrikar, AGP for Respondent-State. … CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE : 16TH SEPTEMBER, 2026. ORDER : . Heard both sides. 2. The Petitioner is challenging the adjudication of the Respondent-Education Officer, invoking the powers under Rule 12 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (for short “MEPS Rules”) holding Respondent No.5 to be senior by relying upon the order of approval. 2 58-WP-491-2020 (C) 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner was appointed on 18.06.2009. Respondent No.5 was appointed on 17.06.2013. After the School started receiving 20% grant-in-aid, the proposal was forwarded, and in the approval letter, the date of appointment of both the teachers is stated to be 17.06.2013. According to the learned counsel, the said date is not decisive. The Management corroborates the Petitioner’s claim. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.5 submits that the letter dated 28.08.2019 does not support the Petitioner’s claim. His client has not been supplied with any appointment letter 18.06.2009, and there is no record to indicate that the Petitioner was appointed on 18.06.2009. It is clearly stated in the letter dated 28.10.2015 that the appointments of both the teachers were with effect from 17.06.2013. 5. Mr. Mahindra B. Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-Management, supports the Petitioner’s claim. He submits that, as per the appointment orders, the resolution dated 04.08.2019, and the covering letter addressed by the President to the Education Officer, it is indicated that the Petitioner is senior 3 58-WP-491-2020 (C) on the basis of the date of appointment. 6. The Petitioner and Respondent No.5 fall in Category “C” of schedule F appended to MEPS Rules. As per Note No.3, the date of continuous appointment would be the decisive factor for determining seniority. The Management has taken a stand that the Petitioner was appointed on 18.06.2009, which is corroborated by the appointment order, resolution dated 04.08.2019 and covering letter dated 18.06.2019. The Petitioner entered Category “C” at an earlier point of time. The date of appointment recorded as 17.06.2013 in the letter dated 20.10.2015 by the Education Officer is inconsequential. The letter of approval cannot be the foundation for determining the inter se seniority between the Petitioner and Respondent No.5. 7. The Education Officer has committed patent illegality in relying upon the order of approval indicating the date of appointment of the Petitioner as well as Respondent No.5 as 17.06.2013. The communication made by the Head Master on 28.03.2019 is de hors the record. 8. It is also relevant to notice that, though the Petitioner 4 58-WP-491-2020 (C) rendered services from 18.06.2009 in an unaided school, that would not wipe out his tenure and claim for seniority. Hence, the impugned order is unsustainable. 9. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. It is declared that the Petitioner is senior then Respondent No.5. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME J. ] Suresh