1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION NO.531/2009 IN MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION ST. NO.7803/2009 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO.639/2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3649/2004 (Decided) Yograj s/o Gendlal Kamane ...Versus... The Presiding Officer, Additional School Tribunal, Nagpur at Chandrapur and others ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Shri P.Y. Khandpasole, Adv. for applicant] [Smt. T.D. Khade, AGP for respdt. Nos.1 & 4] [Shri C.S. Kaptan, Adv. for respdt. Nos.2 & 3] CORAM:- A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED :- 24.06.2009 This is an application for condonation of delay of 263 days in filing application for restoration of application for modification of order of this Court dated 28.6.2007. Learned Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 has no objection for allowing this application. Hence, delay is condoned. Civil Application is allowed. 2 MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION ST. NO.7803/2009 Heard. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Consequently, Civil Application No.639/2008 is restored to file. Misc. Civil Application stands disposed of. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.639/2008 This is an application for modification of the order of this Court dated 28.6.2007. Heard. Learned Counsel for review petitioner argued that there is error apparent on the face of record in the judgment inasmuch as the petitioner was entitled to minimum six months salary in terms of the provision of Section 11 (2) (e) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. The petitioner had actually worked and at least six months salary could have been awarded by the Tribunal and this Court and therefore, this Court should review its order and modify the same accordingly. Per contra, Advocate Shri Kaptan for respondent Nos.2 and 3 argued pointing out my attention to the judgment of the School Tribunal as well as order of this Court that the review petitioner was only M.A. and had no training qualification and did not complete the training qualification despite of the fact that opportunity was given to him to do so and that is the reason why the School Tribunal as well as this Court found no merit in the case 3 and therefore, there is no error as argued by learned Counsel for the review petitioner. Heard learned Counsel for the rival parties for quite sometime. Seen the provisions of Section 11 of the M.E.P.S. Act. It is seen from the reading of Section 11 (2) (e) of the M.E.P.S. Act that the said provision applies in the case where the Tribunal finds termination to be illegal. But then for some or the other reason does not find it fit to make an order of reinstatement. Care is taken by the legislature in such cases upon refusal of order of reinstatement permitting the Tribunal to ask the management to pay six months salary in lieu of reinstatement. That is not the case in hand. Reading of the order of this Court under review shows that the review petitioner was untrained teacher and was asked to complete his training qualification, but he did not succeed and he remained as such and therefore, the termination was upheld by the Tribunal as well as this Court since the petitioner had no right in the employment in the absence of training qualification. Appeal as well as revision thus stood dismissed. In view of above the review petitioner will not be entitled to any salary much less claimed by him for a period of six months under the said provision. In the result, I do not find any merit in the review petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE ssw