1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7692 OF 2005 DIST.: KOLHAPUR Shrikant K. Deshpande ...Petitioner Versus The Secretary, Shri Shahu Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr. Mandar Limaye for the Petitioner Mr. V.A. Sonpal, Assistant Government Pleader, for Respondents No. 3 and 4 Mr. A.M. Khandekar i/by Mr. M.S. Topkar for Respondent No. 5. CORAM: B ILAL NAZKI and J.H. BHATIA, JJ. DATE: NOVEMBER 19, 2008 P.C.:- The petitioner's case is that he was appointed as the Assistant Teacher on 1st June, 1981. By Government Resolution dated 5th August, 1997, the Government provided that where there are 8 or more teachers in a college, the seniormost teacher should be appointed as Vice Principal, and according to that policy, the petitioner became Vice Principal from 1st September, 1997. He continued 2 to remain as Vice Principal till 29th August, 2005 when the first respondent passed an order reverting him back to the post of an Assistant Teacher. 2. The case of the respondents is that in terms of Government Resolution dated 2nd January, 2002, a Vice Principal should have the qualification of B.Ed. The petitioner, admittedly, had not the qualification of B.Ed., but he had passed a Diploma in Higher Education, and, according to the respondents, diploma could not be equated with a degree. Since, admittedly, the petitioner was not eligible to be appointed as Vice Principal, because he did not have the qualification of B.Ed., therefore, no fault can be attributed to the action of the respondents reverting the petitioner from the post of Vice Principal. 3. We, therefore, do not find merit in this petition. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he had been promoted as Vice Principal in 1997, and continued as Vice Principal up to 29th August, 2005. Therefore, the order of reversion should not be retrospective and should only be prospective, as, according to him, even if there was a mistake of promoting the petitioner, it was a mistake 3 committed by the respondents, and he should not be made to pay for that. We agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner, and direct that if the petitioner has withdrawn any additional emoluments by being Vice Principal from 1997 till 29th August, 2005, those amounts shall not be recovered from the petitioner. With this direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. The Rule is made absolute to the extent mentioned above. BILAL NAZKI, J. J.H. BHATIA, J.