Post Of Education Officer Cannot Be Placed On Higher Pedestal Than That Of Administrative Officer: Bombay HC
|The Bombay High Court held that only on account of one of the functions being adjudicatory, the post of Education Officer cannot be placed on higher pedestal than that of an Administrative Officer.
The Court held thus in a petition filed by persons working as Education Officers Group- A who were aspiring for the post of Deputy Director of Education based on their seniority in the feeder cadre of Education Officers. They challenged the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench which had rejected their original application.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Manjusha Deshpande observed, “In our view, the quasi judicial function of the Education Officer is not a substantive function. This function is discharged owing to his Administrative duties. It merely confers him power to decide dispute about the seniority amongst the employees of a school in accordance to the rules applicable. Therefore, the said post can by no stretch be equated with full fleged quasi judicial Authorities. The predominant function remains administrative function. The Education Officer is undoubtedly is an officer discharging Administrative functions. Therefore only on account of one of his functions being adjudicatory the post of Education Officer cannot be placed on higher pedestal then that of an Administrative Officer other things being equal. As it is the issue in the said matter was whether the higher pay scale was relevant for fixation of seniority or the length of service. Therefore, merely certain observations in the said judgment will not be applicable and binding precedent in the present case.”
Advocate C.R. Naidu represented the petitioners while Addl. G.P. N.C. Walimbe and Senior Advocate Narendra V. Bandiwadekar represented the respondents.
Brief Facts -
The case before the Tribunal was that the petitioners belonging to the cadre of regular Education Officers working in the School Education and Sports Department were aspiring for the further promotion to the post of Deputy Director, of Education, in the near future. According to them, they fulfilled the eligibility criteria required for the post of Deputy Director of Education as provided in Rule 3, of the Recruitment Rules of Deputy Director of Education in the Maharashtra Education Service, Group- A (Administrative Branch), Recruitment Rules, 2018. The cadre of Education Officers, Group – A (Administrative Branch) was amalgamated with the cadre of Administrative Officers, Group– A vide a Government Resolution dated November 20, 2019 and the said decision for amalgamation of the post of Education Officer, Group – A and Administrative Officer Group – A was taken because both the posts carried the same pay scale and similar duties.
Therefore, a policy decision was taken by the Government in the School Education Department to amalgamate both the posts. As a result, the Recruitment Rules were also framed by the Education Department and the notification framing the Recruitment Rules was issued on December 28, 2022. The said Recruitment Rules were framed in exercise of power conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution in supersession of all existing rules, orders or instruments issued previously. The private respondents were the officers belonging to the erstwhile Administrative Officer Cadre and the petitioners challenged Rule 8 of the Recruitment Rules of Education Officer in the Maharashtra Education Service, Group – A, (Administrative Branch).
The High Court in the above regard noted, “On going through the dictionary meaning of include, it means to have as one part, to contain among other things, to take in or comprise as a part of a whole group. Therefore, the said Schedule B does not exclude any other posts apart from the posts mentioned in the Schedule. Therefore, the contention of the Petitioners on this count is also not at all tenable. Therefore, Rule – 8 is not contrary to Rule- 3 of Recruitment Rules for the post of Deputy Director of Education. So also Rule – 3 of the Recruitment Rules, 2022 is not contrary to Rule – 8.”
The Court while considering that as per the policy decision of the State Government, the post of Administrative Officer which has been merged in the cadre of Education Officer does not lose its independent entity, said that merely equivalence is granted to the said post for consideration of further promotion and the said decision has been taken after taking into consideration the similarity, eligibility, qualifications, pay scale, nature of duties and exercise of powers of the said two posts, the said decision of amalgamation has been taken.
“As a result we hold that, the Rule – 8 incorporated in the Recruitment Rules, 2022, are not arbitrary, illegal or ultra vires”, held the Court.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition and refused to interfere in the judgment of the Tribunal.
Cause Title- Sheshrao Namdev Bade v. The State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2023:BHC-AS:38040-DB)