1 wp5283.10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5283 OF 2010 WITH WRIT PETITION ST. NO. 36495 OF 2010 _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________________ Mr. R.V. Gore, Advocates for the petitioner. Mrs.V.A. Shinde, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Mr. A.L. Tikle, Advocate for respondent no.5 in Writ Petition No. 5283/2010 and Advocate for petitioner in Writ Petition St. No. 36495/2010. Mrs. M.A. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent no.3. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 7TH APRIL, 2011 Heard respective Counsel. Impugned order is no doubt unreasoned but facts clearly show that the date of acquiring training qualification (B.Ed.) has been looked into for the purpose of determining date of entry into respective category as per Schedule-F of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Condition of Service) Rules, 1987. 2. Advocate Mr. Gore has contended that the Management had circulated the seniority list and it was never objected to by any of the parties. The objection has 2 wp5283.10 been raised for the first time before the Education Officer. The argument is misconceived. The Education Officer is final authority in the Act to determine the seniority list and before that authority the dispute was raised. Though the Authority has not given any reason, it is apparent that Authority has verified the record and then delivered the verdict. 3. Advocate Mr. Tikle for other petitioner contended that the petitioner-V.V. Shinde has obtained B.A. qualification in 1986 and B.P.Ed. in 1987 therefore, his training qualification is also prior to other candidates/respondents. However, there is nothing along with his Petition to show that because of his qualification as Bachelor of Physical Education, he was appointed as physical Instructor or teacher. Approval produced along with the Petition mentions erroneously his qualification as B.Ed. and not B.P.Ed. and approval given is again till the end of session. 4. Advocate Mr. Tikle has contended that there was no dispute about the appointment of petitioner as Physical Education Teacher (assistant teacher) for physical education. The contention can not be accepted. When the petitioner does not have B.Ed. qualification, it is apparent that he could not be appointed as Assistant teacher. I do not find any jurisdictional error or perversity. Hence Petition is rejected. No costs. 3 wp5283.10 5. In view of the disposal of the Writ Petitions, nothing survive in Civil Applications, if any, same are disposed of accordingly as infructuous. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE gas/wp5283.10