JUDGMENT - MOHARIR D.J., J.:---By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner a Secondary School Teacher, challenges the orders and decisions of the respondents whereby he was given a seniority below that of the respondent No. 4 teacher, resulting in discrimination which was arbitrary and discriminatory and hence hostile, being further and thus violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner holding the degree of Bachelor of Arts as also the degree of Bachelor of Education was appointed a teacher in the Modern Education Society's High School at Badnera with effect from 1-7-1958. On the same day, the respondent No. 4-A.D.Bapat was also appointed a teacher in the said school. According to the petitioner and even admittedly, the respondent No. 4 obtained the degree and qualifications of Bachelor of Education only in the year 1961. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the respondent No. 4 was junior to him and the petitioner was entitled to be shown as senior, in the seniority list. 2. Up to the year 1974, no seniority list had been prepared. The first ever time when it was prepared by the management and circulated was on 19-1-1974. In this seniority list, the name of the petitioner was wrongly shown at Serial No. 4 while that of the respondent No. 4 was shown at Serial No. 5 and that of one Shri Patil at Serial No. 3. Shri Patil who had been retired from service, since before the presentation of this petition, had obtained his Bachelor of Education degree even later than the respondent No. 4; he had obtained it in the year 1963. The petitioner, was, therefore, senior even to Shri Patil. 3. In spite of the fact that the petitioner being a trained teacher, was entitled to get seniority over Shri Patil also as the respondent No. 4 Shri Bapat, as per the relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Secondary Schools Code and other relevant provisions applicable to the teachers and non-Government educational institutions, the seniority list as prepared was not therefore valid and illegal one, it affected the fundamental right of equality to the petitioner. 4. 4. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation to the Head Master on 19-1-1974, seeking that for and under several facts and circumstances, he ought to have been shown senior to both Shri Patil and the respondent No. 4 Shri Bapat. This representation was also made by the petitioner, to the Education Officer who turned down the same. The representation to the Education Officer had been made on 16-9-1975. It was actually thereafter that the petitioner came to be shown below the respondent No. 4 at serial No. 4. The seniority thus granted to the respondent No. 4 Shri Bapat resulted in injustice and he, therefore, made the representation dated 16-9-1975 and like recommendation was also made by the Head Master of the School by his letter dated 16-12-1975, but the Education Officer, rejected both, by his reply dated 11-3-1976. The petitioner pointed out that various points raised by him in the representation were neither considered, nor was there any application of mind by the Education Officer, to the existing Rules which govern the question of determination of seniority inter se the teachers. The petitioner, therefore, preferred appeal to the Deputy Director of Education on 5-4-1976. The appeal remained unattended, and therefore, he also sent fresh reminder on 12-3-1977. He also sent a letter to the Education Officer in that behalf on 25-3-1977. The Deputy Director of Education by his order dated 29-11-1979 informed that since the date of appointment of the respondent No. 4 and the petitioner was the one and the same and since the respondent No. 4 Shri Bapat was senior in age to the petitioner, it was Shri Bapat who was entitled to be treated as senior and accordingly shown in this seniority list. The contentions raised by the petitioner were not thus accepted. He, therefore, preferred a further appeal to the Director on 20-12-1979. That also came to be rejected by a cryptic order, to the effect that the Directorate of Education had nothing to add to what the Deputy Director of Education has said in his order dated 29-11-1979. 5. Therefore, the petitioner filed this petition in which he points out that he was a trained graduate on the date of appointment and was given a regular pay-scale whereas the respondent No. 4, though appointed on the same date was given only a fixed pay of Rs. 5. Therefore, the petitioner filed this petition in which he points out that he was a trained graduate on the date of appointment and was given a regular pay-scale whereas the respondent No. 4, though appointed on the same date was given only a fixed pay of Rs. 100/- which showed that he was not given a regular scale of pay. The petitioner had been, by virtue of his seniority by reason of his possessing higher educational qualifications, had been appointed Supervisor under Rule 63(2)(ii) of the Secondary Schools Code, he had been thus accepted as senior to both Shri Bapat and to Shri Patil, he had been given such appointment as teacher not once, but thrice during 1970-71, 1971-72, January 1973 to June 1973 and then again for the academic year 1973-74. Further the petitioner had come to be confirmed as a teacher earlier than the respondent No. 4. Lastly, under the revised pay-scale as fixed by the Badkas Pay Commission and then by the Bhole Commission, the pay-scale of the petitioner was more than that of the respondent No. 4. All these facts and circumstances establish the petitioner's seniority over the respondent No. 4. Yet none of these was considered by the authorities, no hearing was given to him. It was, therefore, on the orders which were arbitrary and discriminatory and unjustly denying seniority due to the petitioner over and above that of the respondent No. 4 had come to be passed. As regards the order of the Director of Education, the petitioner also contended that no reasoned and speaking order had been passed. Further Government Resolutions dated 24-12-1979 and 30-8-1969 which were relevant in this behalf had also not come to be considered. The petitioners therefore, prayed for a writ in the nature of a certiorari for quashing the orders dated 11-3-1976 of the Education Officer, dated 29-11-1979 of the Deputy Director of Education and dated 22-1-1980 of the Director of Education. He also seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus for consideration of the petitioner's representation, by giving him a due and adequate hearing and an opportunity to substantiate his case. He also seeks directions that during the pendency of the petition, he should be continued and considered for appointment as the Assistant Head Master, he being senior to the respondent No. 4. 6. The petition was resisted by the respondents Nos. He also seeks directions that during the pendency of the petition, he should be continued and considered for appointment as the Assistant Head Master, he being senior to the respondent No. 4. 6. The petition was resisted by the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3, the Director of Education, the Deputy Director of Education and the Education Officer. In their return, they have pointed out that as per Clause 5 of Annexure (45) of the Secondary Schools Code, the seniority of teachers who were permanent on 31-12-1965 was required to be determined as per the M.P. Secondary Education Act, 1951 and thereunder the seniority of teachers would be determined on the basis of the length of service and then if two teachers were appointed on the same date, then the teacher who was senior in age would be treated as senior. It was in the light of this provision that the seniority of the respondent No. 4 was determined as being over and above that of the petitioner. The petition was, therefore, misconceived and deserves to be dismissed with costs. 7. We have heard the learned Counsel Shri Udhoji for the petitioner at a considerable length and also gone through the representations made by the petitioner and the replies therein or the decisions taken thereon by the three respondents from time to time. The gravamen of Shri Udhoji's challenge to the refusal of the seniority claimed by him appears to be that irrespective of the fact that the respondent No. 4 and the petitioner were appointed on one and the same day, were graduates and of the two, respondent No. 4 was admittedly the seniormost by age, the question of seniority has to be determined on the basis of the better qualification in education, i.e. according to the petitioner the fact that he held degree of Bachelor of Education on the very date of his appointment and that such a degree was obtained by the respondent No. 1 at a month's later date, in 1961 ought to be the final determinative factor. This, the respondents do not accept as correct, inasmuch as on general principles as argued by the learned Additional Government Pleader, as between the two incumbents, who enters service on the same day in the similar post, the seniority ought to be and is to be determined by age i.e. the one who is older in age has to be accepted as the senior one. However, according to Shri Udhoji, right from start of his service, there were several indications, until the contrary was indicated by the publication of the seniority list in January 1974, that in spite of being younger in age than the respondent No. 4, it was he who had come to be considered and treated as the senior upon various facts and circumstances. The first one of these is that the petitioner had been appointed as Supervisor under Rule 63 of the Secondary Schools Code, for the reason that he held the degree of Bachelor of Education and was thus a trained graduate and was for that reason given regular pay-scale of Rs. 110 to Rs. 200/- as on 1-11-1959 whereas the respondent No. 4 was taken on a fixed salary of Rs. 100/-, in view of the Government Resolution dated 24-12-1959. Secondly, while making the appointments of Supervisors, it was he who had been first appointed as such, having been accepted as senior to the respondent No. 4. Thirdly, that he was granted such appointment for more than three academic terms. Fourthly, that he was confirmed earlier than the respondent No. 4 and fifthly that the revised scales of pay as fixed by the Badkas Commission and again thereafter by the Bhole Commission he was put in a pay-scale higher than the respondent No. 4. These facts and circumstances, it was urged, were determinative of the fact of seniority of the petitioner, which could not then go unrecognised and unconsidered and thus be disturbed at the time of preparation of seniority list. The Education Officer, by his order dated 11-3-1976, however, decided to treat the respondent No. 4 Shri A.D. Bapat as senior to the petitioner in the seniority list prepared by the Director of Education in March 1975. The appeal to the Deputy Director of Education, it would appear, had taken into consideration all these facts and circumstances relied upon by the petitioner. The appeal to the Deputy Director of Education, it would appear, had taken into consideration all these facts and circumstances relied upon by the petitioner. In his reply to the petitioner's representation, the Deputy Director by his letter dated 29-11-1979 at Annexure 9 pointed out that though the petitioner and respondent No. 4 had come to be appointed in the Rajeshwar Union High School, Badnera, with effect from 1-7-1958 and though at that time both of them were graduates, yet the person who was senior in age was to be treated as senior in service. That was why Shri Bapat was shown as senior. The Deputy Director categorically rejected the contention that by reason of the petitioner possessing the Bachelor of Education degree from a date earlier than Shri Bapat, he was entitled to be considered as senior to the respondent No. 4. The question of acquiring training qualification for the purpose of seniority, it was pointed out, was not applicable in the case of such persons who were permanent on 13-12-1965. This has reference to the Annexure 45 dealing with the seniority list in Non-Government Secondary Schools, under the Secondary Schools Code of 1963. The petitioner, would thereunder appear to claim that teachers having the qualifications of M.A./M.Sc. with B.T./B.Ed. degrees, appointed in Higher Secondary Schools and teaching the subject offered by them at their Master's Degree examination would be at the top standard of the Higher Secondary School. This was Annexure A. The Category B consists of persons holding the degree in M.A., M.Sc. and B.T. or B.Ed., B.A., B.Sc. with B.T. or B.Ed., B.A., B.Sc. with Diploma in teaching and B.A., B.Sc. with S.T.C. and Diploma in Education or Educational Diploma in Teaching one year course with 10 years' post S.T.C., etc. service. The third category consists of those who do not possess the D.Ed. degrees, but only the graduation degrees of B.A. B.Sc. with S.T.C. The petitioner's case is that the respondent No. 4 must necessarily fall in the category of untrained graduates which is category E, whereas he must be found placed in the Category B at any rate. service. The third category consists of those who do not possess the D.Ed. degrees, but only the graduation degrees of B.A. B.Sc. with S.T.C. The petitioner's case is that the respondent No. 4 must necessarily fall in the category of untrained graduates which is category E, whereas he must be found placed in the Category B at any rate. This provision, it will be appreciated, has no application to the case of the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 and it is only to be noted, from Note 4, para 2 of Annexure 45, that in case of teachers whose date of continuous appointment is one and the same category is common, the teacher who is senior by age will be treated as senior. In the circumstances, inasmuch as Annexure 45 was not applicable in the case of the petitioner and respondent No. 4, it would have to be accepted as correct decision given by the authorities that by reason of being older in age than the petitioner, the respondent No. 4 came to be treated as the senior one. 8. Having carefully gone through Annexure 9, it is not possible for us to hold that this was a case of non-application of mind by the authorities. For, it be also noted that the Director of Education, when he heard the appeal or representation made by the petitioner against the decision of the Deputy Director, clearly indicated that he had gone through the reasoning adopted by the Deputy Director and had, in the circumstances of the case nothing more to add. It is not possible to accept the criticism that the order was cryptic in any sense, when indeed there could be nothing more to be added to it. It is not possible to accept the criticism that the order was cryptic in any sense, when indeed there could be nothing more to be added to it. Even, so the learned Counsel Shri Udhoji added that the fact that the petitioner had been given the chance to work as Supervisor for as many as three academic terms, that he was given this chance earlier than the respondent No. 4 that the petitioner was put on higher scale of pay, upon revision of pay-scales by Badkas Commission and Bhole Commission, may no doubt be facts, but he is still not in a position to state that it is by reason of these subsequent facts that the senior or seniority which is to be determined on the date of agreement, the date of appointment for both the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 being common, that the petitioner's seniority would have to be determined which automatically would mean that until such subsequent event occurs, the seniority as between the two could never be determined at all or would not be required to be determined. It was, therefore, for the petitioner to establish that by reason of any Rules or Regulations operating from the date of their appointment viz. 1-7-1958, the respondent No. 4 was required to be shown as Junior to the petitioner, on the premise that the petitioner possessed and the respondent No. 4 did not possess the qualification of a training degree Bachelor of Education. In our opinion, the petition is, therefore, without any merit and the decisions of the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 cannot be faulted on the ground of being either discriminatory or arbitrary. There appears no breach whatsoever of the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, in any manner. The petition is, therefore, dismissed with no orders as to costs. Petition dismissed. -----