JUDGMENT : Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The controversy involved in the present case is about the inter se seniority between the petitioner and the respondent No. 5, who were working as Assistant Teachers in the Middle School. Undisputedly, for appointment as an Assistant Teacher in the Middle School, the minimum requirement of qualification is of H.Sc. D.Ed as prescribed in Scheduled ‘B’ under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Rules. On the date of appointment on 13-7-1983, the petitioner was qualified for being appointed as Middle School teacher. Subsequently, he improved the qualification and obtained the degree of B.Ed on 4-7-1994. The respondent No. 5 was appointed on 23-7-1983 as untrained teacher and was possessing the qualification of B.A. He acquired B.Ed. Degree on 23-6-1986. It is on the basis of this acquiring of training qualification, the seniority is counted and since the respondent No. 5 acquired B.Ed. qualification earlier than the petitioner, he is held to be senior. 3. The controversy is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Viman Vaman Awale vs. Gangadhar Makhriya Charitable Trust, reported in 2014 MhLJ Online (S.C.) 74 = (2014) 13 SCC 219 . The Apex Court has held in paragraph 22 of the decision that the clear and unambiguous criterion for determining seniority is the continuous officiation counted from the date of acquiring the educational qualification as prescribed under Scheduled ‘B’. 4. If the aforesaid principle is to be applied to the facts of the present case, the petitioner was possessing the qualification of H.Sc. D.Ed. in terms of the criteria prescribed under Schedule ‘B’, on the date of his appointment as Assistant Teacher on 13-7-1983. Therefore, his seniority is to be counted with effect from 13-7-1983 and not from 4-7-1994, when he acquired the training qualification of B.Ed. Acquiring of B.Ed. qualification was merely an improvement in the qualification. 5. The respondent No. 5 was not possessing the required educational qualification in terms of the criteria prescribed under Schedule ‘B’; for appointment as Assistant Teacher in the Middle School, on the date of his appointment on 23-7-1983. He acquired B.Ed., qualification on 23-6-1986 and became qualified in terms of criteria prescribed in Schedule ‘B’ and therefore, his seniority could be counted only from 23-6-1986. 6. He acquired B.Ed., qualification on 23-6-1986 and became qualified in terms of criteria prescribed in Schedule ‘B’ and therefore, his seniority could be counted only from 23-6-1986. 6. In view of the aforesaid position, the petitioner has to be held as senior to the respondent No. 5 as his continuous officiation is to be counted from 13-7-1983. The order passed by the Education Officer impugned in this petition is, therefore, required to be set aside. 7. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. The order dated 10-12-2015 passed by the respondent No. 3 Education Officer is hereby quashed and set aside. 8. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No orders as to costs. Petition allowed.