1 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.741 OF 2002. 1. The President, Rehabilitation Dhanegaon Backward Class Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Dhanegaon Camp, Taluka Kaij, Dist. Beed. 2. The Secretary, Rehabilitation Dhanegaon Backward Class Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Dhanegaon (Camp), Taluka Kaij, Dist. Beed. 3. The Head Master, Dhaneshwari High School, Dhanegaon Camp, Taluka Kaij, Dist. Beed. ... Petitioners. Versus 1. Nathrao S/o Prabhakar Palwade, Age about 35 years, Occ.Nil, R/o Dhanegaon, Taluka Kaij, Dist. Beed. 2. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Beed. ... Respondents. ... Mr.V.G.Sakolkar, advocate for the petitioners. 2 Mr.Vivek Bhavthankar, advocate for the Respondent No.1. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 09.07.2009. ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By this petition, the petitioners impugn the judgment rendered by the learned Presiding Officer of School Tribunal, Aurangabad in Appeal No.108/1993, whereby Respondent No.1 was directed to be reinstated in service and it was further directed that proposal be sent by the Petitioner for his training within a time bound period. 2. The case of the Respondent No.1 before the School Tribunal was that he was appointed by the petitioners as Assistant Teacher. He has completed B.Sc. (Biology) in 1990. He responded to an advertisement of the petitioners' School for recruitment of Assistant Teacher. He was interviewed by the School Committee on 11.7.1990. He was appointed on vacant post for one academic year w.e.f. 11.7.1990 as a Science Teacher. He was further continued in service by virtue of 3 order dated 14.6.1991. The petitioners undertook that he will be sent for B.Ed. course through the School as in-service candidate. He alleged that his services were orally terminated without any reason w.e.f. 2.7.1990. He challenged the oral termination. 3. The School Tribunal held that oral termination of the Respondent No.1 was in contravention of the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (for short, MEPS Act). The School Tribunal directed reinstatement of the Respondent No.1 and further directed that a proposal shall be submitted by the petitioners to facilitate the Respondent No.1 to obtain B.Ed. training. 4. Heard learned counsel. 5. The chief contention raised by the petitioners is that the Respondent No.1 is not a duly qualified School Teacher and, therefore, his services can not be continued. He had tendered 4 resignation dated 30.4.1993. His resignation is accepted by the Management. The question involved in the petition is whether the initial appointment of the Respondent No.1 was legal and proper. The School Tribunal seems to have overlooked the relevant provisions of the MEPS Act, pertaining to required qualification for trained teachers in Secondary Schools and Junior Colleges of Education. In view of Schedule B appended to Rules II(1)(i) of the MEPS Rules, for Graduate Teachers : A Bachelor's degree in Teaching or Education of any statutory University or a qualification recognised by Government as equivalent thereto is essential in addition to the Bachelor's degree in any faculty of education. The Respondent No.1 was admittedly untrained teacher. His services came to be terminated within a short span of service, approximately of about three (3) years. The very fact that the Respondent No.l was ineligible for appointment as Assistant Teacher would go to the root of the matter. It is well settled that such a person was ineligible for being appointed as Assistant Teacher. The School Tribunal seems to 5 have overlooked this important aspect of the matter and directed reinstatement only on the ground that one month's notice or one month's salary in lieu of notice was not given to the Respondent No.1. The notice could be required only if the Respondent No.1 was a trained teacher and was entitled to continue in service. It appears that the case of the management was that he had resigned and, therefore, there was no question of giving him any notice. The resignation letter issued by the Respondent No.l was held to be violative of Section 7 of MEPS Act, 1977 and Rule 40 of the MEPS Rules, 1981. Be that as it may, the Respondent No.1 could not be reinstated under order of the Tribunal when he lacks the basic eligibility, namely, B.Ed. or equivalent qualification. The direction of the School Tribunal to forward proposal to the Competent Authority to permit the Respondent No.1 to undergo training is also unwarranted and uncalled for exercise of the judicial process. It is for the Management of the School to propose names of the eligible candidates for undergoing the training. It is not obligatory on the 6 Management to ensure that such ineligible persons are sent for training to acquire necessary qualification. Again it is a matter of the policy of the Government to allow such candidates for in-service training. The School Tribunal has no business, however, to give such kind of direction to the Management. The impact of the impugned judgment and order rendered by the School Tribunal is that the untrained and ineligible candidate would be thrusted on the Management for the post of Assistant Teacher. In this view of the matter, I am inclined to hold that the impugned order to the extent of reinstatement and the directions given by the School Tribunal, in respect of the Respondent No. 1 Nathrao, is quite illegal. 6. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed. Rule made absolute. No costs. C.A.No.3508/2004 is disposed of. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) Authenticated Copy (Pvt.Secy. to Hon'ble Judge) asp/office/wp74102 7