1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.580 OF 2011 KU. SANDHYA MANOHARRAO KONDIKARWAR ..VS.. GURUKRUPA SAMAJSEVI SANSTHA AND OTHERS Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Shri Anand Parchure, advocate for petitioner Shri D.B.Patel, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.4 CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : 9/3/2011. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Presiding Officer School Tribunal, Nagpur on 23.12.2010, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner, under section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act 1977. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's services were allegedly terminated on 23.6.1997. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher, on year to year basis, though the petitioner was not a trained graduate. Though it is the case of the petitioner that the management had deputed the petitioner for acquiring B.Ed. Training and had given an undertaking that she would be continued in service after the training qualification was acquired, the petitioner had failed to place the said undertaking on record before the Tribunal. Though the petitioner was deputed for B.Ed. Training by the 2 respondent no.1 and 2 in the year 1993, she was not able to complete her B.Ed., during the stipulated time and her services were terminated on 23.6.1997. On the date of her termination and on the date of her appointment the petitioner was not qualified to be appointed as an Assistant Teacher. The petitioner obtained B.Ed. Qualification in December 1997 i.e.much after the termination of the services of the petitioner on 23.6.1997.In such circumstances the Tribunal rightly held that the petitioner cannot claim any benefit of the acquisition of training qualification subsequent to her termination in June 1997. The petitioner being an untrained teacher and her appointment being on year to year basis, the tenure of her services automatically ended at the end of each academic session and the petitioner could not have effectively challenged her termination at the end of the academic session 1997 as the appointment of the petitioner for that academic session expired at the end of the academic session. The order passed by the Tribunal appears to be just and reasonable and calls for not interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP