1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION NO.130 OF 2010 AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL ST. NO. 1108/10 IN W.P. NO. 450 OF 2006 (D) (Giridhar s/o Mahadeorao Kolhe ..vs.. Yeshwant Rural Education Society, Wardha and others) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- None for the appellant. Shri H.A. Deshpande, Advocate for respondents-Institution. CORAM:- D.B. BHOSALE AND P. B. VARALE, JJ. DATED :- 29 th JULY, 2010 1. Heard learned counsel for respondents-Institution. 2. We have perused the civil application, so also the order impugned in the Letters Patent Appeal. In the civil application, the applicant/appellant has prayed for condoning 113 days' delay caused in filing the appeal. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 26-8-2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition whereby the petition filed by the respondent- Institution, challenging the judgment and order of the School Tribunal has been allowed. The appellant claims seniority over respondent Nos. 2 and 3. He joined services 2 on 19-7-1965 and at the time of his appointment he was not holding qualification of B.Ed. He acquired that qualification in the year 1973, whereas respondent No.2- Baburao Nagorao Salwe was appointed on 14-6-1966. He also did not have B.Ed. qualification on the date of his appointment and he acquired the said qualification on 09-5- 1970. Respondent No.3-Tryambak Shankarrao Nandurkar had already passed B.Ed. in the year 1968 before his appointment on 01-7-1970. In the backdrop of these facts, the learned Single Judge after considering the relevant provisions of the Act, so also the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Secondary Education Act, 1951 held that the petitioner is not entitled for promotion on the basis of the seniority claimed by him. 3. We have perused the impugned judgment and for the reasons stated therein, we do not find any ground worth considering to interfere with the same. Hence, the civil application for condonation of delay is allowed and the letters patent appeal is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE pma