Milind N. Jadhav, J.

1. Heard Mr. Kudle, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioners, learned AGP for the State-Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5, and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.3 and 4.

2. This Petition seeks to challenge the orders dated 10.06.2019, 14.10.2019 and 23.10.2019, whereby Petitioner No. 1 was declared a surplus teacher and Respondent No.4 was granted approval as Head Master of the Secondary Section of Madhyamik Ashram School, Madha ("the School"), run and managed by Respondent No.3.

3. The case of the Petitioners, briely stated, is that Petitioner No.1 is the senior-most eligible teacher in the Secondary Section of the School and was, therefore, entitled to be considered and appointed as Head Master when the said post fell vacant. It is contended that Respondent No. 3-Management failed and neglected to prepare the inter se seniority list of teachers of the Primary and Secondary Ashram Schools separately, despite directions issued by the competent authority as far back as 05.11.2012, and that the seniority lists of the two categories of schools are required to be maintained independently. It is further contended that Respondent No. 4, who belonged to the Primary Ashram School, was ineligible to be appointed and approved as Head Master of the Secondary Ashram School, and that his appointment was engineered by relying upon incorrect and manipulated records, including a B.Ed. qualification whose genuineness and equivalence are seriously disputed. On this basis, it is alleged that the declaration of Petitioner No. 1 as a surplus teacher was arbitrary, illegal and a consequence of the Management's failure to implement the order dated 05.11.2012, and that Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 acted in collusion with Respondent No. 4 to deprive Petitioner No. 1 of his legitimate claim.

4. Per contra, the case of the Respondents is multi-fold. Attention is invited to the affidivate filed by the Assistant Commissioner, Social Welfare, Solapur Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 5 which contends that the Petition is not maintainable in view of Government Resolution dated 03.10.2017, which prescribes a complete and efficacious grievance redressal mechanism for employees of Ashram Schools, requiring an aggrieved employee to approach, in sequence, before the Regional Deputy Commissioner, the Director, the Principal Secretary and the Minister, before invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; and that the Petitioners, having failed to exhaust the said remedy, cannot maintain the present Petition. Respondent No. 3-Management contends that Respondent No. 4 was legally and validly appointed as Head Master; that Petitioner No. 1's appointment as a teacher does not confer upon him any automatic or vested right to be appointed as Head Master; that the seniority list had, in fact, been prepared and remained unchallenged for nearly eleven years; that Respondent No. 4 is the senior-most trained graduate teacher possessing the requisite B.Ed. qualification; and that the Petition having been filed after inordinate and unexplained delay in respect of orders dating back to 2008 and 2012, is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, apart from being barred for non-exhaustion of the appellate remedy available under the Ashram School Code.

5. Respondent No.4 adopts substantially the same stand as Respondent No. 3-Management, and additionally submits that the Petitioners themselves had earlier approached the appellate authority without success, and that the present Petition is a mere re-agitation of issues already concluded against the Petitioners. Respondent No. 4’s Affidavit-in-reply dated 7th December 2022 and stand is similar and identical to that of Respondent nos.1, 2, & 5; For brevity, in order to determine the present Petition, it is appropriate to refer to the following brief facts.

6. Petitioner No. 1 is stated to be a teacher in the Secondary Section of Madhyamik Ashram School, Madha, run and managed by Respondent No. 3.

7. By an order dated 05.11.2012, the competent authority is stated to have directed Respondent No. 3-Management to prepare the inter se seniority list of teachers of the Primary and Secondary Ashram Schools separately. According to the Petitioners, the said direction was never implemented by the Management.

8. By order dated 10.06.2019, Petitioner No. 1 came to be declared a surplus teacher in the Secondary Section of the School.

9. By order dated 14.10.2019, Respondent No. 4, said to belong to the Primary Ashram School, was granted approval as Head Master of the Secondary Ashram School. This was followed by a consequential/confirmatory order dated 23.10.2019.

10. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the Petitioners are stated to have made representations to various authorities, including the Regional Deputy Commissioner, the Director, the Principal Secretary and the Minister concerned, without any effective relief being granted, prompting the filing of the present Petition seeking quashing of the impugned orders, a declaration that Petitioner No. 1 cannot be treated as surplus, recognition of his entitlement to the post of Head Master with consequential benefits, and an inquiry into the conduct of Respondent No. 3-Management and the concerned authorities.

11. We have heard the learned Advocates for the parties and perused the record, including the pleadings and the affidavits-in-reply and rejoinders filed by and on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 5, Respondent No. 3 and Respondent No. 4 respectively.

12. The submissions made by the learned Advocates for the respective parties have received due consideration of the Court.

13. The preliminary objection raised on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 5, viz., that the Petition is not maintainable in view of the alternative and efficacious statutory remedy available under the Government Resolution dated 03.10.2017, requires consideration. The Petitioners' contention that they had already approached various authorities and that such representations were not effectively considered does not, by itself, establish that the statutory mechanism prescribed under the said Government Resolution has in fact been exhausted in accordance with its terms.

14. On a perusal of the rival pleadings, it is evident that the core controversy involves disputed questions of fact, namely: (a) whether the inter se seniority list of teachers of the Primary and Secondary Ashram Schools was, in fact, prepared and maintained separately pursuant to the order dated 05.11.2012; (b) whether Respondent No. 4, having belonged to the Primary Ashram School, was eligible for appointment and approval as Head Master of the Secondary Ashram School; and (c) the genuineness and equivalence of the B.Ed. qualification/certificate relied upon by Respondent No. 4, the authenticity of which is seriously questioned by the Petitioners and equally seriously defended by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

15. Such disputed questions of fact, involving verification of service and academic records, examination of the seniority lists maintained by the Management, and an inquiry into the genuineness of an academic qualification, are matters more appropriately amenable to determination by the statutory/departmental authorities designated under the Government Resolution dated 03.10.2017 and the Ashram School Code, who are equipped to call for and examine the relevant records, rather than by this Court in the exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

16. The existence of a statutory grievance redressal mechanism, coupled with the fact-intensive nature of the controversy involving verification of seniority records and the genuineness of an academic qualification, persuades this Court that the ends of justice would be better served by relegating the Petitioners to the alternative remedy, rather than by this Court entering into and adjudicating upon disputed questions of fact in writ jurisdiction. This Court has, however, not expressed any opinion on the merits or otherwise of the rival contentions urged by the parties, all of which are left open to be urged before and considered by the appropriate authority.

17. In view of the discussion above, this Court finds that the Petition, in its present form, is not the appropriate vehicle for adjudication of the disputed questions of fact raised herein, and that the Petitioners ought to be relegated to the statutory remedy available to them under the Government Resolution dated 03.10.2017, without prejudice to their rights and contentions on merits.

18. There are two Petitioners before us. There are several impediments in the Petitioner’s case which impells us to dismiss the petition. Admittedly, from the record it is seen that the Respondent No. 4 has been appointed in the Respondent No.3-School right from its inception, i.e., 1st October 1996 and the Government has given approval to his appointment on 1st June 1998 as a trained graduate teacher having acquired the requisite qualification of B.A. B.Ed. It is clearly proved from the record that the Respondent No. 4 is the senior-most teacher rather senior-most eligible teacher for appointment as headmaster. Insofar as Petitioner No. 1 is concerned, he is admittedly been appointed to work as teacher sometime in the year 2004 without any appointment order. When the teachers agitated, a meeting was held before the Minister of Social Welfare Department who gave certain directions on 29th July 2008. It is seen that on and from that date, Petitioner No. 1 was granted approval. However, the admitted starting point of appointment of Petitioner No. 1 is that of 2004 itself. Hence, by virtue of the seniority rather inter se seniority between Petitioner No. 1 and the Respondent No.4, Petitioner No. 1 is not senior and eligible. Insofar as Petitioner No. 2 is concerned, it is seen that he was never declared as surplus teacher and therefore he is not entitled to challenge the order dated 10th June 2019 or if he desires to challenge the subsequent order dated 14th October 2019 then his remedy in law is to approach the appropriate appellate authority as per Government Resolution dated 3rd October 2017. Once it is clear and prima facie seen that the Respondent No. 4 was appointed in the school by following the due process of law of selection and recruitment, he admittedly becomes senior-most teacher and eligible for being appointed as head maser as per the Rules framed under Secondary School Code, 1981.

19. Grievance of the Petitioner is that Respondent No.4 comes from the Secondary Section whereas the Petitioners are from the Primary Section. This grievance stands squarely answered as per the Ashram School Code Index-25, Rule 14.5. which prima facie states that common seniority list has to be prepared for primary and higher secondary school. In this view of the matter, the Petitioner’s claim for a separate seniority or they being from the secondary Section cannot be countenanced or entertained at all.

20. Further, it is seen that Petitioner No. 2 had filed Writ Petition No. 2685 of 2020 which was disposed of by this Court by order dated 14th June 2024, inter alia holding that as per Government Resolution dated 3rd October 2017, the appellate forum was constituted where the impugned order which is subject matter of challenge in the present petition can be assailed by the Petitioner therein. In that view of the matter, the demand of the Petitioners for setting aside the order dated 5th November 2012 is totally illegal and cannot be countenanced.

21. The institution has prepared a seniority list of surplus teachers dated 6th December 2019. Copy of the same is placed before the Court. This is very crucial because it certifies the date of appointment of Petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.1 is Mahesh Balkrushna Kulkarni. His date of appointment is 12th June 2004. Insofar as Petitioner No.2 is concerned, he has not been declared a surplus. On the aforesaid facts, the Petitioner’s claim to be senior to the Respondent No. 4 cannot be established. Petition gives reference to the order dated 5th November 2012 to be restored and seeks setting aside of the order dated 10th June 2019 and 14th October 2019. As such, case of the Petitioner cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that in the order dated 5th November 2012, Respondent No.4 notwithstanding the fact that he was senior to all those persons concerned with the said order but was not even made a party in the said proceedings. By virtue of order of 2012, Mr. Kulkarni was shown at Serial No.1, Mr. Joshi was shown at serial No.2. Mr. Alage was shown at serial no.3 and Mr. Upadhye was shown at serial No.4 in terms of their seniority. Copy of that order is appended at page 23 of petition. However, while doing so, Respondent No.4-Popat Jalindhar Waghmare was not even considered. It is prima facie seen that the order dated 5th November 2012, inter alia pertains to the secondary Section only. Hence, in view of the aforesaid facts if the Petitioners are aggrieved by orders dated 10th June 2019 and 14th October 2019, they cannot approach this Court by filing a writ petition to challenge the said orders. He will have to take appropriate steps as available to him in law by approaching the appellate forum. In our opinion, the order dated 23rd October 2019 appointing the Respondent No. 4 as headmaster has been correctly passed in view of the twin orders dated 10th June 2019 and 14th October 2019.

22. We find no merit in the petition in view of our above observations and findings. Petition is dismissed keeping all contentions of the Petitioners to challenge the impugned order in appropriate proceedings as available to them in law. Reserving that liberty to the Petitioner, subject to it being available in accordance with law, writ petition is dismissed.