1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.1429 of 1998 Mrs.Nancy Dhar Petitioner Vs. Shivandas Rewachand Dharmani Educational Trust & ors. Respondents Mr.Dilip Bodake for petitioner. Mr.A.P.Vanarse, AGP for resp.no.4. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE, J. January 25, 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 2/9/1997 rendered by the School Tribunal at Pune thereby dismissing her Appeal No.57 of 1993. In the said appeal filed under Section 9 of the MEPS Act, 1977 ("the Act" for short) she had raised a grievance regarding her demotion effected on or about 25/1/1991 and she contended that she was holding the post of Head Mistress and she was reverted to the post of Assistant Teacher. 2. The respondent - management appeared before the School Tribunal, filed its reply and pointed out that though the appellant was holding the M.A. 2 Degree, she did not possess the B.Ed. degree and, therefore, she was not eligible to be appointed even as Assistant Teacher in the secondary school, leave alone her eligibility to hold the post of Head Mistress. It was further pointed out that on account of exigencies prevailing in or about July 1990 she was asked to officiate as Head Mistress when the school was not recognised. School came to be recognised in November 1993 and the Education Officer, therefore, called upon to furnish the details regarding the appellant’s qualifications. The appellant was issued letters to submit her qualifications details and she did not respond. The management, therefore, believed that she did not possess the qualifications and, therefore, she was not entitled to be continued in the post of Head Mistress. The management also stated that the appeal was not filed in time and also pointed out that the respondent no.1 - Trust is a minority institution (linguistic minority of Sindhis) and, therefore, under Article 30 read with Section 3(2) of the Act, it had the right to appoint the Head of the school as per its choice. 3. The School Tribunal held that there was no 3 sufficient cause made out to condone the delay and the appellant had no right to continue in the post of Head Mistress and, therefore, the action of the management in reverting her to the post of Assistant Teacher was legal and valid. 4. It is an admitted position that at least till June 1995, the appellant - petitioner did not possess the qualifications of B.Ed. and, therefore, she was not qualified to hold the post of Head Mistress in a secondary school. Along with the petition memo a certificate is sought to be placed on record at Exhibit "A" which states that the petitioner passed the Bachelor of Education examination held in the year 1995 in second division. However, it is clear from the impugned judgment that no such certificate was placed before the School Tribunal and in any case it is not a certified true copy of the said certificate which has been placed on record. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in holding that the appellant did not possess the required qualifications for continuing in the post of Head Mistress. The Tribunal further held that there are two more lady teachers who are senior to petitioner i.e. Smt. Malati Iyer and Smt. Mala Fondane. Consequently the 4 Tribunal was right in recording a finding that the action of the management to revert the appellant to the post of Assistant Teacher was not illegal. 5. Hence this petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. Rule discharged but without any order as to costs. (B.H.MARL