The petitioner in this case was an Assistant Teacher, appointed to a school managed by the respondent in 1995. He had obtained his B.Sc. in 1991 and his B.Ed. in 1993, which placed him in Category ‘C’ of Schedule ‘F’ under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (MEPS Act). On the other hand, the respondent, who was appointed as an Assistant Teacher with lower qualifications and later upgraded his qualifications, was junior to the petitioner.

In 2022, after a seniority list was published, the petitioner was promoted to Supervisor, then Assistant Headmaster, and subsequently appointed as Incharge Headmaster. These promotions were approved by the Education Officer. However, the respondent challenged the seniority list and sought a revision, claiming that he had been wrongfully superseded in the promotions process. The Education Officer accepted this challenge and issued an order to revise the seniority list and promote the respondent to the Headmaster's post.

The petitioner’s legal team contended that the respondent had failed to raise objections to the seniority list in a timely manner and had previously withdrawn an appeal before the School Tribunal. As such, the Education Officer had no jurisdiction to interfere with the promotion process at this stage, particularly since the petitioner had already been promoted to the role of Incharge Headmaster.

Several precedents were cited, including cases where the court had previously ruled that the Education Officer could not determine issues of seniority after promotions were already granted. Specifically, in Vidyalata Nilkanth Patil v. Shikshan Prasarak Samiti (2015), the court had found that once a promotion had been made, the Education Officer lost the jurisdiction to adjudicate on seniority disputes.

The respondent, however, argued that the management was obliged to refer the dispute over seniority to the Education Officer under Rule 12 of the MEPS Rules. According to the respondent's counsel, this was a mandatory obligation, and the Education Officer had the right to decide the dispute of seniority, even after the promotions were granted. The respondent also relied on the case of Krishna Mahadu Gasti v. Mahesh Shamrao Deshmukh (2024), where it was held that the Education Officer’s decision on seniority must precede any Tribunal adjudication under Section 9 of the MEPS Act.

After reviewing the arguments, the High Court concluded that while the Education Officer indeed had jurisdiction under Rule 12 to adjudicate disputes of seniority, this jurisdiction does not extend to deciding promotion matters after promotions had already been granted. The Court emphasized that the powers of the School Tribunal were broader under Section 9 of the MEPS Act, which gives the Tribunal the authority to resolve issues related to supersession, including inter-se seniority, even when promotions have already been made.

The Court ruled that the Education Officer had overstepped his jurisdiction by entertaining the application for revising the seniority list after the promotions had been approved. Therefore, the order passed by the Education Officer was set aside. However, the Court allowed the respondent the opportunity to file an appeal before the School Tribunal to address the seniority dispute. The Tribunal would then decide the matter on its merits without being influenced by the High Court’s observations.

This decision highlights the intricate balance between the powers of the Education Officer and the School Tribunal under the MEPS Act. While the Education Officer has the responsibility to determine seniority disputes, the Tribunal holds the final say in matters of supersession and promotion, even when the promotions have already been approved.

The ruling also underscores the importance of timely action in challenging seniority lists. Employees who feel aggrieved by their seniority placement must raise objections promptly to avoid complications later, especially when promotions are being processed.

The case provides valuable insights into the legal framework surrounding promotions and seniority in private schools in Maharashtra. It emphasizes that while Education Officers play a key role in maintaining seniority lists, their jurisdiction is limited once promotions are granted, leaving such disputes to be handled by the School Tribunal. The petitioner’s victory serves as a reminder that employees must be vigilant in safeguarding their rights under the MEPS Act, particularly when their career progression is at stake.