Judgment :- 1. This petition by a graduate teacher seeks quashing of an order passed by Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur on 02.09.1997, whereby the petitioner was placed below respondents No.4 to 6 in the seniority list of teachers in Category “C”. 2. The facts, which are material for deciding the petition are as under: Petitioner and respondents No.4 to 6 were appointed in respondent No.3 school run by respondent No.2 Society and improved their qualifications as shown in chart below: TABLE 3. Upon an objection being raised by respondents No.4 to 6 to appointment of petitioner as Supervisor w.e.f. 01.07.1997, the Education Officer, heard the parties in the matter of fixation of seniority and passed the impugned order, leading to filing of present petition. 4. After notice, respondents No.4 and 6 have filed their returns denying petitioner’s claim of entitlement to seniority in category “C” in Schedule “F” to the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. According to them, they were already trained graduates when appointed and therefore, were in category “C” whereas the petitioner passed B.Ed. much later on 05.06.1983. Therefore, they prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. I have heard Advocate Shri Khandewale, learned counsel for the petitioner, Advocate Shri Ingole, learned counsel for respondent No.6 and learned Assistant Government Pleader Shri Deshpande for respondent No. 1. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a Division Bench of this Court in Pramod Vs. State of Mah., reported at 2006(5) Mh.L.J. 110 had held that while fixing seniority of Assistant Teachers the question of consideration of educational qualification would arise only in case when two or more persons are appointed on the same day and then seniority of such appointee is required to be decided according to categories in Schedule “F” of MEPS Rules. Before going to the facts of that case and the findings recorded, it may be useful to extract for ready reference Rule 12 of MEPS Rules and relevant part of Schedule “F” as under: “12. Seniority List – (1) Every Management shall prepare and maintain seniority list of the teaching staff including Head Master and Assistant Head Master and non-teaching staff in the School in accordance with the guidelines laid down in Schedule “F”. Seniority List – (1) Every Management shall prepare and maintain seniority list of the teaching staff including Head Master 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 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.” Schedule “F”. 1..... 2. Guidelines for fixation of seniority of teachers in the secondary schools, Junior Colleges of Education and Junior College classes attached to Secondary Schools and Senior College.. :- For the purpose of fixation of seniority of teachers in the secondary schools, Junior Colleges of Education and Junior College classes attached to Secondary Schools the teachers should be categorised as follows:- Category A : Heads of secondary schools having an enrolment of students above 500 and Principals of Junior Colleges of Education having more than four Divisions on the basis of the dates of their appointments to the respective posts. Category B : Heads of secondary schools having an enrolment of students of 500 and below, Principals of Junior Colleges of Education having four or less Divisions and Assistant Heads of Secondary schools having more than 20 classes on the basis of the dates of their appointments to the respective posts. Category C : Holders of M. A./ M.Sc./M. Com., B.T./ B. Ed., or its equivalent; or B.A. B.Sc./B.Com., B.T./B.Ed., or its equivalent; or B.A./ B.Sc./B.Com., Dip. T (old two years course); or B.A./ B.Sc./ B. Com., S.T.C./ Dip. Ed./Dip. T. (one year course) with 10 years post – S.T.C. Etc. service. [B.A. or its equivalent Plus Senior Hindi Shikshak Sanad with five years service; or Junior Hindi Shikshak with ten years service (after obtaining both academic and training qualifications). T (old two years course); or B.A./ B.Sc./ B. Com., S.T.C./ Dip. Ed./Dip. T. (one year course) with 10 years post – S.T.C. Etc. service. [B.A. or its equivalent Plus Senior Hindi Shikshak Sanad with five years service; or Junior Hindi Shikshak with ten years service (after obtaining both academic and training qualifications). Category D : Holders of B. A., B.Sc./ B. Com., S.T.C./ Dip. Ed. (one year course) (Senior or Junior Hindi Shikshak Sanad) or its equivalent. [Explanation – On and after the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette, and without affecting the promotion made until that date, the inter se seniority of teachers with qualification Senior Hindi Shikshak Sanad or Junior Hindi Shikshak Sanad in service should be fixed in Category “C” with reference to the date of their acquiring both the qualifications i.e. B.A. or its equivalent and the Senior (5 years) or Junior Hindi Shikshak Sanad (10years) as the case may be by the teachers concerned.] Category E : Holders of S.S.C., S.T.C./ Dip. Ed./ Dip. T (one year course) [Senior or Junior Hindi Shikshak Sanad] or its equivalent. Category F : Untrained Graduates or holders of equivalent qualification. Category G : Untrained Matriculates or holders of equivalent qualification. Category H :All teachers other than those mentioned in categories A to G. Note 1 For the purpose of categories C, D and E 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 shall be considered as untrained and their seniority shall be fixed in the ‘F’ or ‘G’ category of untrained teachers, as the case may be. Note 2 : The following training qualifications which can be secured two years after S.S.C. Examination shall be considered as training qualification for the purpose of seniority even after 1st October 1970 – (1) D. Ed. (2 years) (2) T.D. (Bombay University) (3) Dip. Ed. (Nagpur University) Note 3. - 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. Note 4. - The categories mentioned above represent the ladder of seniority and have been mentioned in descending order. Ed. (Nagpur University) Note 3. - 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. Note 4. - The categories mentioned above represent the ladder of seniority and have been mentioned in descending order. Note 5 - Where a management runs more than one school and where Junior College classes are or are not attached to any one or more of such schools, the seniority list of a particular cadre shall be a combined seniority list of all persons in that cadre working in all the schools (excluding night school, if any), or Junior College classes attached to schools of the Management. The total continuous service rendered by the persons om a particular cadre in any school or Junior College class shall be taken into consideration for the purpose of seniority and for the purpose of promotion.” (Emphasis supplied). 7. The In Pramod’s case he was appointed as Assistant Teacher in respondent No.4 High School on 9th June, 1990 and was appointed as Headmaster on 31st October, 1996. Respondent No.5 was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 15th June, 1981. The petitioner was D. Ed. at the time of his appointment and acquired qualification of B. Ed. In 1984 and M. Ed. In 1994. At the time of his appointment, respondent No.5 was already H. D.Ed. which was considered equivalent to B. Ed. The dispute about seniority between the petitioner and respondent No.5 was referred to the Education Officer, who held that respondent No.5 was senior to the petitioner since on the date of his appointment i.e. 15th June, 1981, he was already H. D.Ed. i.e. equivalent to B. Ed., whereas, on that date the petitioner was only D. Ed. 8. The Division Bench held that, on a plain reading of Rule 12 and the guidelines contained in Schedule F, seniority of the teachers ought to be primarily decided with reference to their dates of appointment in the respective posts. The Court then observed that when there were more than one teachers in a similar post, the seniority will have to be decided with reference to the category mentioned in Schedule “F” and concluded that : “a person who is appointed prior to another will automatically be the senior in the list. The Court then observed that when there were more than one teachers in a similar post, the seniority will have to be decided with reference to the category mentioned in Schedule “F” and concluded that : “a person who is appointed prior to another will automatically be the senior in the list. However, if two persons are appointed on the same day, certainly their seniority would have to be decided with reference to the guidelines comprised under Category “C” and in that case the educational qualification of the appointee on the date of appointment would be a relevant factor to be taken into consideration.” The Division Bench held that since the petitioner was appointed before respondent No.5 he was to be considered as senior. While so concluding the Bench referred to judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Dominic Araujo Vs. State of Goa and others (1989 Mh.L.J. 538), where the Goa, Daman And Diu School Education Act and Grantinaid Code and the Rules made thereunder were applicable. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of this authoritative pronouncement of the Division Bench of this Court, the petitioner’s claim for seniority ought to be allowed. His learned adversaries submitted that, another Division Bench of this Court in Ashok Vs. Edu. Officer (Secon.) Z.P., reported at 2007(4) Mh.L.J. 358 had taken a view that initial date of appointment is of no consequence insofar as category-wise seniority is concerned and that seniority was to be reckoned from the date the teacher either achieves qualification as required, or improves his or her qualification for being trained teacher. While so holding, in paragraph 6 of the judgment, the Division Bench referred to Note-4 in Schedule-F of the Rules, which has already been reproduced above. The Court also observed that question was no longer res integra in view of the judgment of this Court in Madhav Vs. Edu. Offi. Z.P., reported at 1994 Mh.L.J. 42. In that case, the petitioner, when appointed as an Assistant Teacher in secondary school on 31.07.1956, was not trained teacher. He obtained Diploma in Teaching in 1962 and was confirmed in 1967. He became graduate in 1967 and passed B. Ed. examination in 1970. Respondent No.3 joined the school on 15.07.1968 as fully qualified teacher having passed B. A. in 1961 and B. Ed. in 1968. He obtained Diploma in Teaching in 1962 and was confirmed in 1967. He became graduate in 1967 and passed B. Ed. examination in 1970. Respondent No.3 joined the school on 15.07.1968 as fully qualified teacher having passed B. A. in 1961 and B. Ed. in 1968. The question of inter se seniority of two persons arose when one of them had to be appointed as supervisor in the school. The petitioner had been shown as senior by the employer which was questioned by respondent No.3 before the Education Officer, who held that respondent No.3 was senior to the petitioner. Eventually respondent No.3 was required to file writ petition since the Education Officer had altered his earlier stand and in the writ petition the Education Officer was directed to hear both the sides and decide the question. He eventually held by his impugned order that respondent No.3 was senior to the petitioner. In that case, category “B” referred to in paragraph 4 of the judgment corresponds to Category-C in Schedule “F” now. Noting the observations in Yashwant Vs. Director of Education, (1967 Lab J.C. 1611) to the effect that the seniority depends upon length of service after acquiring qualification and no untrained teacher, even if he was lecturer, can be promoted merely because of seniority in that so called higher category. The Court held that respondent No.3 was senior, noting that various categories represented ladder of seniority and were mentioned in the descending order under Rule 3 of the Secondary School Code, which corresponds to Note-4 in Schedule-F. 10. In view of the fact that the Bench deciding Pramod Vs. State of Mah. Had not considered the judgment of Division Bench in Madhav Vs. Education Officer. Z.P. as also Note 4 in Schedule-F, and possibly referred to a judgment under Goa, Daman And Diu School Education Act, which may not be in parimateria, I would prefer to follow the judgment of Division Bench in Ashok Vs. Edu. Officer (Secon.) Z.P., reported at 2007(4) Mh.L.J. 358 as laying down more accurately. Similar view has been taken by Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J in Lakhwinder Kaur Vs. G.C. Edu. Society, reported at 2006(5) Mh.L.J. 332 . 11. In view of this, it cannot be held that the Education Officer erred in holding that respondents No.4 to 6 were senior to the petitioner. The petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.