JUDGMENT : 1. Both these Writ Petitions are being disposed of by common Judgment as the same have been filed against the self-same Judgment of the School Tribunal, Mumbai dated 28th June 2004 in Appeal No.53 of 1998. The said Appeal was filed by Respondent No.1 in Writ Petition No.2745 of 2004 and Respondent No.3 in Writ Petition No.9833 of 2004. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their description in the Appeal filed before the School Tribunal by the above said Respondent. For the sake of clarity, it may be noted that Anwar Hasan Mohammed had filed the said Appeal against the decision of the Management to appoint Mrs.C.L.Jacob as the Vice Principal of the St.Xavier’s Junior College. The said Mrs.Jacob was impleaded as Respondent No.3 in the Appeal. 2. Briefly stated, the admitted facts are that the the Respondent Institution has been recognised as minority institution. Appellant as well as Respondent No.3 were appointed on the same date as lecturers in the Junior College on 20th June 1979. At the time of appointment, the date of birth of the Appellant was disclosed as 5th February 1954 and that of the Respondent No.3 Mrs.Jacob was disclosed as 16th July 1954. At the time when the Appellant and Respondent No.3 were appointed, both were postgraduates in M.Sc. Soon after the appointment, Respondent No.3 Jacob passed Diploma in Higher Education (DHE) Course which is equivalent to B.Ed. Course, in July 1979. It is common ground that when the Respondent No.3 Jacob was appointed on 20th June 1979, she had appeared for the said DHE examination and results were awaited. Results were declared only in July 1979. Insofar as the Appellant is concerned, he acquired the same qualification only in April 1981. Nevertheless, presumably on the basis of date of birth of the Appellant, he was considered as senior to Respondent No.3 by the Management and came to be appointed as lecturer in Senior College in a leave vacancy with effect from 1st December 1978 to teach the integrated teaching course with a workload of lectures at Senior and Junior College. The Appellant was also subsequently appointed as Supervisor on 17th May 1995 which was the senior most post in the Junior College and the functions now performed by the Vice Principal were being performed by the Supervisor. The Appellant was also subsequently appointed as Supervisor on 17th May 1995 which was the senior most post in the Junior College and the functions now performed by the Vice Principal were being performed by the Supervisor. The State Government issued Government Resolution on 5th August 1997 creating post of Vice Principal in the Junior College. In view of the said Notification, the Management was required to appoint the eligible lecturer as Vice Principal. That post was filled on 19th November 1977 by appointing Respondent No.3, instead of the Appellant-though he entered service as lecturer on the same date along with the Respondent No.3. This action of the Management was questioned by the Appellant by way of Appeal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The said Appeal was resisted by the Management as well as Respondent No.3. According to the Management, they were advised to appoint Respondent No.3 as Vice Principal in exercise of discretion available to the minority institution in terms of Section 3(2) of the Act. The Management also asserted that the Respondent No.3 was senior to Appellant having regard to her changed date of birth effected on the basis of documents produced by the Respondent No.3 to indicate that she was born on 16th July 1952 and not on 16th July 1954. If that changed date of birth is to be reckoned, the Respondent No.3 would be senior to the Appellant having regard to her date of birth, being born in prior point of time. The Respondent No.3 also resisted the Appeal and additionally contended that she was senior to Appellant in view of the admitted fact that she had acquired requisite qualification of DHE in July 1979 itself, much prior to that qualification acquired by the Appellant in 1981. According to the Respondent No.3 on acquiring the said qualification, in July 1979, having regard to the extant provisions, she was deemed to have entered the higher category in relation to the interse seniority position than the Appellant. According to the Respondent No.3, taking any view of the matter, she was senior to Appellant and thus eligible to be appointed as Vice Principal in the Junior College being the senior most lecturer. 3. According to the Respondent No.3, taking any view of the matter, she was senior to Appellant and thus eligible to be appointed as Vice Principal in the Junior College being the senior most lecturer. 3. The School Tribunal after considering the stand taken by the rival parties proceeded to answer the plea taken by the Management in the negative. The Tribunal relying on the decision of Division Bench of our High Court in the case of Gunvantlal Kantilal Khamar vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in 1993 (I) CLR 295 rejected the stand of the Management, justifying the appointment of Respondent No.3, in preference to that of the Appellant, in exercise of powers under Section 3(2) of the Act, to be invoked by the minority institutions. Insofar as the stand taken by the Management on the basis of changed date of birth of the Respondent No.3, the same also has been rejected on the reasoning that the Respondent No.3 failed to follow necessary procedure for effecting such change in the date of birth, for which reason, the claim of the Respondent No.3 of changed date of birth, as 16th July 1952, cannot be accepted. Insofar as the stand taken by the Respondent No.3 that having regard to the fact that the Respondent No.3 had acquired DHE qualification in earlier point of time, soon after being appointed as lecturer, the same has been answered by the Tribunal by observing that it cannot be taken into consideration as it has been taken only in the written statement filed by the Respondent No.3. The Tribunal did not elaborate further on this aspect. Consistent with the finding reached by the Tribunal, the Tribunal proceeded to allow the Appeal, thereby setting aside the appointment order dated 27th November 1997 in respect of Respondent No.3 as the Vice Principal with effect from 27th November 1997 and instead, directed the Management to appoint the Appellant as the Vice Principal of the Junior College and pay him difference in salary allowances from November 1997. This decision is subject matter of challenge in the two Writ Petitions which are being disposed of by this common order. The former Writ Petition is filed by the Management on the Original Side of this Court, whereas, the latter Petition is filed by the Respondent No.3 on the Appellate Side of this Court against the self-same Judgment of the Tribunal. 4. The former Writ Petition is filed by the Management on the Original Side of this Court, whereas, the latter Petition is filed by the Respondent No.3 on the Appellate Side of this Court against the self-same Judgment of the Tribunal. 4. Having considered the rival submissions and keeping in mind the pleadings and documents on record, in particular, the admitted factual position as already noted earlier, I shall proceed to answer the controversy in issue. 5. The first question that needs to be addressed is: whether the claim of the Management that it had legitimately exercised discretion under Section 3(2) of the Act, available to a minority institution, to appoint the Respondent No.3 as Vice Principal in preference to the Appellant, though the Appellant was senior in age to the Respondent No.3, can be sustained? Counsel for the Management placed reliance on the unreported decision of Single Judge of our High Court in Writ Petition No.2775 of 2002 decided on 2nd May 2002; unreported decision of Division Bench of our High Court dated 13th January 2004 in Writ Petition No.4794 of 2003; observations in the decision of the Division Bench of our High Court in the case of supra) Gunvantlal (supra); another Division Bench decision of our High Court in the case of Hakimsingh Ram Sumer Singh Yadav vs. Vardhaman Sthanakwasi Jain Shravak Sangh & Ors. reported in 2000 (4) Mh.L.J. 626 . 6. On the other hand, Counsel for the Appellant relied on the exposition in the case of Gunvantlal (supra) and additionally on the decision of the Single Judge of our High Court in the case of St.Theressa’s High School & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra reported in 1997 (2) Mh.L.J. 713 . 7. In my view, it is unnecessary to dilate on this issue in detail, as the legal position is well established as expounded in the case of Gunvantlal (supra) as well as St.Theressa High School’s case supra) (supra). It is common ground that the decision of our High Court in Gunvantlal (supra) is a good law and is being consistently followed by this Court including by the Single Judge of our High Court in supra) St.Theressa’s case (supra). It is common ground that the decision of our High Court in Gunvantlal (supra) is a good law and is being consistently followed by this Court including by the Single Judge of our High Court in supra) St.Theressa’s case (supra). The decision in St.Theressa’s case (supra) restates the legal position stated in Gunvantlal’s case ( supra) and further expounds that if the Management decides by appropriate Resolution to confer administrative, managerial, supervisory and financial functions on a Supervisor (in the present case, Vice Principal), then the Management is required to pass an appropriate Resolution. The Court further proceeded to hold that the compartmentalization of duties, responsibilities and functions enumerated in the Act would indicate that in every matter, on facts, the Court or the Tribunal is required to be satisfied that a Principal, Vice Principal, Head Master, Head Mistress, Assistant Head Master, Assistant Head Mistress or Superintendent has been appointed as Administrative Head of the School by appropriate Resolution. That would be a question of fact which is required to be proved by the minority institution whenever dispute arises regarding the status of the appointee. The Court has found that the duties and functions of the Head of a School are distinct and separate from the duties of Assistant Head Supervisor, Superintendent, etc.; in that, apart from his duties as a teacher, a Head is also required to discharge administrative functions and is required to look into financial matters. The definition of the Head of the Institution in Section 2(9) would indicate that although all the functionaries referred to in the said Section do the work of teaching, the Head of the School is required to discharge the administrative duties which are of administrative nature. For that reason, the Court proceeded to hold that the Management has to decide by appropriate Resolution to confer such duties on the named officer by an appropriate Resolution and notify the same to the concerned Authority. 8. In the case on hand, the Management has not asserted that the post of Vice Principal which was to be filled in was notified as Head of the Institution as such. If so, the question of accepting the claim of the Management that they made appointment on the post of Vice-Principal of the Junior College, in exercise of powers under Section 3(2) of the Act, disregarding the seniority of the eligible candidate, cannot be countenanced. If so, the question of accepting the claim of the Management that they made appointment on the post of Vice-Principal of the Junior College, in exercise of powers under Section 3(2) of the Act, disregarding the seniority of the eligible candidate, cannot be countenanced. To that extent, I am in agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal. The decisions which are pressed into service would clearly indicate that right to exercise discretion under Section 3(2) of the Act of the minority institution is essentially in respect of direct recruitment of a person and not in respect of a promotional post. In other words, insofar as the claim of Appellant and Respondent No.3 to the post of Vice Principal, that was required to be considered only as a promotional post by the Management keeping in mind their circumstances, I have no hesitation in rejecting the claim of the Management that the appointment of Respondent No.3 to the post of Vice Principal was made in exercise of discretion under Section 3(2) of the Act, being a minority institution, as is asserted by the Management. The appointment of Respondent No.3 cannot be sustained on that count. 9. That takes me to the next question as to whether the appointment of Respondent No.3 can be justified on the basis of claim of Management that the Respondent No.3 was senior to the Appellant, having regard to her changed date of birth. Insofar as this question is concerned, in my opinion, the Tribunal has rightly found that the Respondent No.3 cannot be permitted to rely on the documents pressed into service to assert that her date of birth was 16th July 1952 and not 16th July 1954 as was disclosed at the threshold when her appointment was made on that basis. This is so because, the Respondent No.3 has admittedly not followed the procedure as is required for effecting the change of date of birth in the service record. Neither the Counsel for the Management nor the Respondent No.3 has been able to point out that the mandatory procedure for effecting change in date of birth in the service record was followed by the Respondent No.3. The finding so recorded by the Tribunal, in my opinion, is unquestionable. Neither the Counsel for the Management nor the Respondent No.3 has been able to point out that the mandatory procedure for effecting change in date of birth in the service record was followed by the Respondent No.3. The finding so recorded by the Tribunal, in my opinion, is unquestionable. If the Respondent No.3 has not taken recourse to necessary procedure for change of date of birth, merely because the Respondent No.3 has in her possession some documents to substantiate her claim that her correct date of birth was 16th July 1952 and not 16th July 1954, that can be no basis to give benefit thereof to the Respondent No.3, disregarding the entry of date of birth in her service record. The service record of the Respondent No.3 on the relevant date when she came to be appointed as Vice Principal; as well as even now continues to indicate her date of birth as 16th July 1954. If that date of birth is to be kept in mind, obviously she would be junior to the Appellant as the admitted date of birth of the Appellant is 5th February 1954. Being senior in age, the Appellant, having regard to the relevant provisions, will have to be treated as senior to the Respondent No.3-both of them having been appointed on the same date i.e. 20th June 1979. In other words, even this view taken by the Tribunal does not warrant any interference. 10. The last question that remains to be addressed is the stand taken by the Respondent No.3 that she acquired DHE qualification soon after being appointed as lecturer, on account of which, she will have to be treated as senior to the Appellant and placed in higher category in the seniority order with effect from such date. The Tribunal has brushed aside this contention on the specious reasoning that it cannot be considered, as the same finds place only in the Written Statement filed by the Respondent No.3. Significantly, the Tribunal was conscious of the legal position that the issue of seniority if required to be gone into, while considering the Appeal under Section 9 raising grievance regarding supersession, ought to be considered as an incidental issue. That observation is found in Paragraph 25 of the impugned Judgment. This legal position is well established. Significantly, the Tribunal was conscious of the legal position that the issue of seniority if required to be gone into, while considering the Appeal under Section 9 raising grievance regarding supersession, ought to be considered as an incidental issue. That observation is found in Paragraph 25 of the impugned Judgment. This legal position is well established. In the recent decision of the Division Bench of our High court in the case of Umesh Balkrishna Vispute v. State of Maharashtra & 486 Ors. reported in 2001 (1) Mh.L.J. 486, this issue has been answered relying on earlier decision in the case of Ramchandra Narayan Jamkar vs. Sau.Saroj Yeshwant Deopujari in Writ Petition No.1309 of 1991 decided on 19th June 1991. In the reported decision, the Division Bench has quoted with approval, statement of law occurring in the earlier decisions rejecting the plea that the seniority list approved by the Education Officer becomes final and conclusive and it is not open to the Tribunal to examine the validity of such seniority list. For, the issue of seniority being an incidental issue for considering the grievance about the supersession, the Tribunal while considering the Appeal under Section 9 is competent to examine grievance regarding validity of the interse seniority position of the parties. The question is : whether on account of Respondent No.3 having acquired DHE qualification in earlier point of time, can be the basis to treat the Respondent No.3 as senior to that of the Appellant? 11. To examine this aspect, it would be apposite to revert to the position as obtained in the year 1979 when the Appellant as well as Respondent No.3 were appointed on 20th June 1979. At the relevant time, the service conditions and related matters of the employees in Junior Colleges were governed by the provisions of the Secondary Schools Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’). The definition clause-Clause (5) of the Code-stipulates that a Higher Secondary School (Junior College) is an institution which provides instruction leading to Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination (H.S.C. Examination) or Indian School Certificate Examination or other Examinations recognised by the Government as equivalent thereto, at the end of Std. XII (Second Year Junior College). Annexure 45 in the said Code deals with the seniority list of teachers in the non-Government secondary schools. XII (Second Year Junior College). Annexure 45 in the said Code deals with the seniority list of teachers in the non-Government secondary schools. As aforesaid, Junior College, on account of the deeming provision in the Code, have always been treated as Secondary Schools for the purpose of application of provisions in the Code. It is well established position that although the Code has been considered as executive instructions, however, insofar as the provisions in the Code dealing with the recruitment, conditions of service of employees and allied provisions have been given statutory status and held to be binding on the parties. That position is well established. The provisions regarding seniority list of teachers in non-Government secondary schools are spelt out in Annexure 45 of the Code. The same reads thus: "ANNEXURE (45) Seniority List of Teacher in the Non-Government Secondary Schools 1. Government has decided to lay down the following revised guidelines for fixation of seniority of teachers in non-Government secondary and higher secondary schools. 2. For the purpose of fixation of seniority of teachers in non-Government secondary and higher secondary schools the following categories of teachers in the ladder of seniority should be taken into account. Category A : This category is applicable to: Higher Secondary Schools Only M.A.,II/M.Sc.,II/M.Com.,II/M.Sc.(Agriculture), II,B.T./B.Ed. The teachers of the above qualification appointed in higher secondary schools and teaching a subject offered by them at their Master’s Degree Examination to the top standard of the higher secondary school. Category B: Holders of : M.A./M.Sc.,B.T./B.Ed., or its equivalent; or B.A./B.Sc.,B.T./B.Ed., or its equivalent; or B.A./B.Sc.,Dip.T.(old two year Course); or B.A./B.Sc.,S.T.C./Dip.Ed./Dip.T.(one-year course) with 10 years post S.T.C., etc., service. Category C: Holders of : B.A./B.Sc.,S.T.C./Dip.T.(one-year course) or its equivalent. Category D: Holders of: S.S.C.,S.T.C./Dip.Ed.,/Dip.T.(one-year course) or its equivalent. Category E : Untrained Graduates or holders of equivalent qualifications. Category F: Untrained Matriculates or holders of equivalent qualifications. Category G: The rest. Note 1 : For the purposes of categories B, C and D mentioned above, teachers with S.T.C., T.D. Jr.P.T.C., Dip.T., Dip.Ed. (Post S.S.C. one-year course) qualifications appointed on or after 1st October 1970 will be considered as untrained and their seniority should be fixed in the E or F Category of untrained teachers, as the case may be. Note 1 : For the purposes of categories B, C and D mentioned above, teachers with S.T.C., T.D. Jr.P.T.C., Dip.T., Dip.Ed. (Post S.S.C. one-year course) qualifications appointed on or after 1st October 1970 will be considered as untrained and their seniority should be fixed in the E or F Category of untrained teachers, as the case may be. Note 2 : The following training qualification which can be secured two years after S.S.C. Examination should, however, be considered as training qualification for the purpose of seniority even after 1st October 1970: (i) D.Ed, (2 years). (ii) T.D. (Bombay University) (iii) Dip.Ed.(Nagpur University) Note 3: Seniority of M.A. (M.Sc.) M.Com., B.Ed., teachers would be common and their seniority would be determined on the basis of length of service after B.Ed., in the school or schools of the same Management. There would not be a separate category ‘A’ for determining the seniority of the teachers in Higher Secondary Schools. (G.R.E. and Y.S.D.No.HSC.1076/419IXX-XXI of 6th May 1976) Note 4 : In the case of teachers whose date of continuous appointment in one and the same category is common, the teacher who is senior by age will be treated as senior. 3. The categories mentioned above represent the ladder of seniority and have been mentioned in descending order. The interse seniority of teachers falling in any single category should be determined on the basis of their length of continuous service in that category in a single school or in schools run by the same management. 4. If a management run S.S.C. level school(s) as well as Higher Secondary School(s), higher seniority of M.A.,II/M.Sc.,II, B.T./B.Ed. teachers (by virtue of their falling in category A) should be considered only while making appointment to the post of headmaster of Higher Secondary School. For the purpose of making appointments to the posts of Headmaster/s and Supervisor/s in its S.S.C. level schools M.A.,II/M.Sc.,II, B.T./B.Ed. teachers should not be considered as belonging to a higher category of seniority (category A). They should be considered as part of teachers in category B, the interse seniority of teachers in this category B (to be considered while making appointments to the posts of Headmaster/s and Supervisor/s in S.S.C. level schools) being determined in accordance with provisions of paragraph 3 above. 5. They should be considered as part of teachers in category B, the interse seniority of teachers in this category B (to be considered while making appointments to the posts of Headmaster/s and Supervisor/s in S.S.C. level schools) being determined in accordance with provisions of paragraph 3 above. 5. The seniority lists of non-Government secondary school teachers in Nagpur Region (now Nagpur and Amaravati Regions) who were permanent on 31st December 1965 should not be disturbed. Their seniority should continue to be determined as per statutory provisions contained in the M.P. Secondary Education Act, 1951 and the rules made thereunder.r If any of such teachers, however, improves his qualifications and goes to the higher category, these revised guidelines of seniority will apply so far as the determination of his seniority in the higher category is concerned. 6. Seniority lists of non-Government secondary school teachers prepared as per D.E.’s Circular No.907/65-C, dated 27th July 1966; should be revised in the light of these guidelines. However, appointments of Headmasters already made after taking into consideration seniority of teachers determined on the basis of old guidelines would not be cancelled. The persons concerned should continue as Headmasters. 7. Any departure from the aforesaid revised guidelines by any management should be allowed only after the prior approval of the Regional Deputy Director of Education concerned, who may consider each case on its merits. (D.E.’s Circular No.AMS.6169/10440-C, dated 11th May 1971). (Please also see Annexure 52)." 12. Adverting to Clause 2, it is obvious that the ladder of seniority of teachers is specified in clause 2 in Category ‘A’ to Category ‘G’. Insofar as teachers who possess qualification only as postgraduates, were required to be treated as untrained graduates falling under Category ‘E’. That position is clearly spelt out on conjoint reading of Note 1 and Note 3 in the said Annexure. In other words, when the Appellant and the Respondent No.3 were appointed on 20th June 1979, as both were possessing qualification of only post graduate degree, were required to be treated as untrained graduates covered by Category ‘E’. Till the Respondent No.3 acquired the qualification of DHE which is equivalent to B.Ed., she continued to remain in Category ‘E’. In other words, when the Appellant and the Respondent No.3 were appointed on 20th June 1979, as both were possessing qualification of only post graduate degree, were required to be treated as untrained graduates covered by Category ‘E’. Till the Respondent No.3 acquired the qualification of DHE which is equivalent to B.Ed., she continued to remain in Category ‘E’. So long as she continued in Category ‘E’, on account of Note 4, the Appellant was required to be treated as senior to her, being senior in age and appointed on the same date falling in the same category. However, the day Respondent No.3 acquired qualification of DHE in July 1979, to effectuate the provisions in Annexure 45 of the Code, the Management was obliged to treat her as covered under Category ‘B’, being a postgraduate and also possessing DHE qualification which is admittedly equivalent to B.Ed. qualification. Indeed, the Appellant on acquiring similar DHE qualification in April 1981 would also enter in Category B along with the Respondent No.3. However, as the Appellant would enter Category ‘B’ in subsequent point of time, naturally on account of Note 3, would be required to be treated as junior to the Respondent No.3 who has entered category ‘B’ in much earlier point of time to that of Appellant. If any authority is required, we can usefully refer to the decisions of the Division Bench of our High Court in the case of Madhav Govindrao Budhe vs. Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur & Ors. reported in 1994 Mh.L.J. 42 and more particularly, decision of Single Judge of our High Court in the case of Baliram Maharaj Shikshan Sanstha Mardi & Anr. vs. Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Amravati & 394 Anr. reported in 2001 (4) Mh.L.J. 394 , in which case, both the incumbents were appointed on the same date in the School but possessed different qualifications which was the basis to reckon their interse seniority. Besides, the Respondents have rightly pressed into service exposition in the case of Shri.Vaijanath s/o. Tatyarao Shinde v. The Secretary, Marathwada Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Aurangabad & Ors. decided by the Full Bench of our High Court reported in 823 2006 (6) All.M.R. 823 , which has taken the view that the service rendered as an untrained teacher was not relevant for determining the seniority. decided by the Full Bench of our High Court reported in 823 2006 (6) All.M.R. 823 , which has taken the view that the service rendered as an untrained teacher was not relevant for determining the seniority. In that, the period spent by the Appellant as untrained teacher would be of no avail for reckoning the seniority of the Appellant vis-a-vis the seniority of the Respondent No.3 who had entered higher category in earlier point of time on account of having acquired requisite qualification to be treated as trained teacher. The Respondents have also pressed into service decision of Division Bench of our High Court in the case of Saramma Varghese vs. Secretary/President, S.I.C.E.S. Society & Ors. 46 reported in 1990 (1) CLR 46. In Paragraph 18 of the said decision, it is held that the length of service after B.Ed. in the School or Schools of the same Management, would be relevant for determining the interse seniority. 13. To get over this position, Counsel for the Appellant would contend that the provisions of the Code cannot be invoked in the present case inasmuch as those provisions would be relevant for determining seniority of teachers in the non-Government secondary schools only and not of junior colleges. It was also argued that the decisions which are referred to in the earlier part of this Judgment, relate to schools and not junior college as such. I find no substance in this submission. As observed earlier, by virtue of deeming provisions in the Code, the provisions in the Code were made applicable even to the employees of junior colleges as if it were Secondary Schools. 14. The Appellant would next contend that the Management had always treated the Appellant as senior to Respondent No.3 on account of date of birth. It is on this premiss, the Appellant was in the first place appointed as lecturer in the Senior College in leave vacancy with effect from 1st December 1998 and later on as Supervisor in the Junior College with effect from 17th May 1995. The argument though attractive, cannot be the basis to decide the legal issue involved in the present case. The argument though attractive, cannot be the basis to decide the legal issue involved in the present case. Going by the admitted facts and applying the provisions of Law, the matter will have to be considered on its own merits and not on account of fortuitous circumstances or erroneous assumption of the Management to consider Appellant as senior at one stage and Respondent No.3 as senior at another stage of their career. 15. I have adverted to the position which ought to have obtained at the relevant time when the Appellant and Respondent No.3 were appointed as lecturer in the same College. Assuming that we have to consider the matter in the context of the provisions in the Act of 1977 and the Rules of 1981 which came into effect from 15th July 1981, the position will be no different. The qualification for teachers is provided under the Rules framed under the Act. Schedule ‘B’ framed under Rule 2(1)(j) and Rule 6, Part 3 thereof deals with the qualifications for teachers in Junior Colleges. There is no dispute that lecturer with only a Master’s Degree will have to be treated as untrained teacher. It is only on acquiring qualification of B.Ed. or equivalent course, the concerned employee can be treated as trained lecturer. The length of service as untrained lecturer will be of no avail to determine the seniority of such person. The guide-lines for fixation of seniority of lecturers in Junior College can be discerned from provisions in Schedule F framed under Rule 12 of the Rules under the Act. The same reads thus: "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 fro 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. 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 fro 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." 16. Indubitably, the provisions of the Act and the Rules cannot be given retrospective effect. However, we are concerned with the situation as to how the matter should be viewed keeping in mind the provisions of the Act and the Rules. Till 15th July 1981, the seniority between Appellant and Respondent No.3 was governed by the principles underlying the Code which are already referred to earlier. After 15th July 1981, there is no qualitative difference between the said principles-as the provisions in Schedule F are more or less similar to the stipulations in the provisions of the Code which are already referred to earlier, except in some respect, which has no relevance to the issue on hand. 17. Suffice it to observe that in terms of provisions in Schedule ‘F’, the Appellant and the Respondent No.3 will have to be treated as untrained lecturers on the date of appointment, but the Respondent No.3 acquired the requisite qualification in July 1979-on which date would enter the higher category being Category ‘C’, instead of Category ‘F’ of untrained graduates. The Respondent No.3 having entered category C in earlier point of time, her seniority will have to be reckoned from that date; whereas, the seniority of Appellant will have to be reckoned in category C on and only from April 1981 when he entered the said category after acquiring necessary qualification. Thus understood, the date on which the Management intended to fill in the vacancy of the Vice Principal, it was obliged in Law, to give precedence to the senior most lecturer between the Appellant and the Respondent No.3. The Respondent No.3 being senior to the Appellant, having entered category C in earlier point of time, was legitimately entitled to be considered and appointed as Vice Principal, unless found unfit. The Respondent No.3 being senior to the Appellant, having entered category C in earlier point of time, was legitimately entitled to be considered and appointed as Vice Principal, unless found unfit. The Management having appointed Respondent No.3 as Vice Principal obviously presupposes that she was found fit for the said post on the relevant date in November 1997. 18. A priori, even though the Management proceeded to appoint the Respondent No.3 on an erroneous assumption that it was doing so in exercise of discretion under Section 3(2) of the Act or for that matter, the Respondent was treated as senior to Appellant on the basis of corrected date of birth, both these arguments though unfounded, the appointment of Respondent No.3 in the post of Vice Principal can be sustained on accepting the stand of Respondent No.3 that in Law, she was senior to Appellant having acquired requisite qualification to be treated as trained lecturer in earlier point of time. 19. Accordingly, in my opinion, no interference is warranted with the ultimate conclusion reached by the Tribunal, though for different reasons. 20. Accordingly, both these Writ Petitions should succeed. The impugned Judgment and Order is set-aside and the Appeal preferred by the Appellant is dismissed on account of this order, thereby upholding the appointment of Respondent No.3 as Vice Principal in the Junior College as per the Notification dated 5th November 1997. 21. Petitions allowed on the above terms with no order as to costs.