ORDER
T.K. Chandra Shekhara Das, J.
1. First petitioner is a Manager of the V.K. Joshi, High School & Jr. College, Karajgaon Tal. Dapoli, Dist. Ratnagiri and the second petitioner is a Head Master of the said High School and third petitioner, who was appointed as a Supervisor, was subsequently put in charge of the Head Master. On a complaint made by the first respondent against the 2nd petitioner and 3rd petitioner who are working in the school as teachers, there is a dispute about the seniority between themselves. According to the seniority maintained in the school by the management, the petitioner No. 3 is senior to the respondent No. 1. When the management made promotion to the post of supervisor, following the seniority which is in force, the first respondent approached the school tribunal. The school tribunal by the order dated 17-10-1997 has held that the respondent No. 1 is senior to the petitioner No. 3 and therefore, the respondent No. 1 is entitled to be promoted as supervisor in the place of petitioner No. 3. Accordingly, the school tribunal has directed the management to appoint the respondent No. 1 as supervisor w.e.f. 1-7-1986, the date on which the post of the supervisor arose and with all attending benefits. This order is under challenge in this writ petition”.
2. I heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner Shri Rege and the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 Shri Langote and for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 Shri Pai, A.G.P. In the nature of the contention raised in the writ petition, I do not think it is necessary for me to go into the disputes between the respondent No. 1 and petitioner No. 3, regarding the inter se seniority between them. The only point urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner Shri Rege is that the School Tribunal has exceeded the jurisdiction and entered the finding about the seniority between the petitioner No. 3 and respondent No. 1. In order to fortify his argument he has taken me to provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Regulation Act, 1977 and Rules 1981. (hereinafter called as the Act and Rules made there under). Rule 12 of the said Act deals with the Seniority List which reads as follows:-
Rule 12—Seniority List.—Every Management shall prepare and maintain seniority list of the teaching staff, including Head Masters and Assistant Head Master and non teaching staff in the School in accordance with the guidelines laid down in Schedule ‘F’. The seniority list so prepared shall be circulated amongst the members of the staff concerned and their signatures for having received a copy of the list shall be obtained. Any subsequent change made in the seniority list from time to time shall also be brought to the notice of the members of the staff concerned and their signatures for having noted the change shall be obtained.
(2) Objections, if any, to the seniority list or to the changes therein shall
be duly taken into consideration by the Management.
(3) Disputes, if any, in the matter of inter se seniority shall be referred
to the Education Officer for his decision.
Based on this Rule, Shri Rege argued that if any dispute arose between the teachers or a teacher on one hand and the management on the other with regard to the seniority prepared by the management then that has to be referred to the Education Officer for decision. Therefore, Shri Rege argues that any dispute with regard to the inter se seniority between the teacher on the one hand and the management and or teachers has to be decided by the Education Officer. The School Tribunal, according to Shri Rege, has exceeded the jurisdiction because the School Tribunal has not been given the power to adjudicate upon the dispute with regard to the seniority of teachers. When the statute prescribed specific authority to discharge the specific duty, it is incumbent upon the authority to confine to those specific duties and it should not travel beyond that and decide the issues referred to them which are not in its limit. He also brought to my notice section 9 of the Act. The relevant portion of the Rules of section 9 is extracted below :–
“Section 9(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law or contract for the time being in force, (any employee in a private school,-
(a) who is dismissed or removed or whose services are otherwise terminated or who is reduced in rank, by the order passed by the Management; or
(b) who is superseded by the Management while making an appointment
to any post by promotion:
and who is aggrieved, shall have a right of appeal and may appeal against any such order of supersession to the Tribunal constituted under section 8:
Provided that, no such appeal shall lie to the Tribunal in any case where the matter has already been decided by a Court of competent jurisdiction or is pending before such Court, on the appointed date or where the order of dismissal, removal, otherwise termination of service or reduction in rank was passed by the Management at any time before the 1st July 1976″.
3. In the foregoing provision, the tribunal has been given power by the statute to adjudicate upon the dismissal or removal or termination or reduced in rank of a teacher by the order of the management. The tribunal can decide the dispute in this regard. The Tribunal can also go into the question about suspension of the teacher by the management in making the appointment on promotion. Sub-clause (b) of section 9(1) gives the power to the School Tribunal, where the teacher is superseded by the management in making an appointment to any post by promotion. The word “supersede” occured in this sub-clause, implies that the seniority of a teacher as shown in the seniority list has not been followed by the management and in supersession of the seniority, the appointment or the promotion was made. By using this word “superseded” in the section, the legislature is clearly intended to confer the power on the tribunal to see the seniority, which is in force, is strictly adhered to. A conjoint reading of Rule 12 and section 9, which I pointed out earlier, gives different powers to the different authorities, will clearly goes to show that the Tribunal cannot go into the question of inter se seniority between the teachers, which is specifically and especially conferred upon the Education Officer under Rule 12 of the said Act. Therefore, the Counsel for the petitioner Shri Rege is right in contending that the tribunal has over stepped the jurisdiction and decided the matter which they are not competent to decide.
4. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 has argued that since the Tribunal is given power to go into supersession of a teacher in the school in giving appointment or promotion that also takes in the power to decide the seniority inter se between the teachers. Therefore, notwithstanding that a separate jurisdiction is conferred to the Education Officer, for deciding the seniority, if the supersession is coupled with the seniority, it is legal on the part of the tribunal to decide the question of seniority also. I cannot agree with this submission. As I pointed out earlier, if the statute giving a specific power to specific authority, the authority has to confine to specific jurisdiction.
5. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1, however, contended that the respondent No. 1 had already made a representation dated 16th July 1996 to the Education Officer with regard to the seniority list and the Education Officer has not taken any decision on that representation dated 16th July, 1996. It is incumbent upon the Education Officer, if a dispute is referred to him, that he must enter a finding. He cannot keep it pending for a long, as it affects the service of the teacher in the School.
6. Therefore, in view of the above, it becomes necessary to direct the Education Officer to dispose of the representation, if it has not already disposed of, within three months from today. While disposing of that representation the Education Officer shall give opportunity of being heard to the parties concerned, including the Management. In case, after such disposal, the Eduction Officer found that the petitioner is senior to the respondent No. 1 the order impugned in this writ petition which is passed by the School Tribunal, would stand set aside. On the other hand if the Education Officer has found that the respondent No. 1 is senior to the petitioner No. 3, the order of the School Tribunal will take effect and the respondent No. 1 is entitled to all the attending benefits from 1-7-1996 as observed by the Tribunal. Till then the stay order passed by this Court will continue.
7. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition is partly allowed and partly dismissed. Rule is discharged accordingly. No cost.
8. Petition allowed partly.