1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No.293 of 2007 In Writ Petition No.2027 of 1996 (Decided) (Surendra s/o Wamanrao Nistane v. New Gramin Shikshan Sanstha, Pardi and others) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions : Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Shri G.N. Khanzode, Advocate for Appellant. Shri N.R. Saboo, Advocate for Respondent No.2. CORAM : K.J. Rohee & R.C. Chavan, JJ. DATE : 8th April, 2008 1. Heard the learned counsel for parties. 2. Undisputedly respondent No.2 was appointed and joined as Assistant Teacher in respondent No.1-Institution on 19-6-1985. He obtained B.Ed. Degree on 10-7-1990. According to the appellant, he was appointed as Assistant Teacher by order dated 1-7-1987 and he did join on the same day. He obtained B.Ed. Degree on 10-9-1987. Thus, according to the appellant, he fulfills both the criteria laid down in Rule 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 for being appointed as Head Master, viz. he has five years' teaching experience, which includes two years' teaching experience after obtaining B.Ed. Degree, whereas though respondent No.2 has teaching experience of five years, he has no teaching experience of two years after obtaining B.Ed. Degree. By resolution dated 4-7-1992, the Management promoted respondent No.2 as 2 Head Master with effect from 10-7-1992. The appellant challenged the said order. 3. The School Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge found that though the date of appointment of the appellant as Assistant Teacher was 1-7-1987, he actually joined on 1-8-1987 as is revealed from the attendance register. Thus the appellant did not complete five years' teaching experience though he has completed two years' teaching experience after acquiring B.Ed. Degree. Respondent No.2 has, however, completed five years' teaching experience including two years' teaching experience after obtaining B.Ed. Degree on 10-7-1992 from which date he was promoted. 4. It is true that it would have been better for the Management to adopt the resolution of promotion on or after 10-7-1992. However, they proceeded to adopt the resolution on 4-7-1992. But all the same, they resolved to promote respondent No.2 not from 4-7-1992 but prospectively, i.e. from 10-7-1992 . As such no illegality can be found with the said order. We find that there is no substance in the Letters Patent Appeal. The Letters Patent Appeal is therefore- dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE pdl