1 Anando IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.212 OF 2010 Ramesh Dattadri Pasikanti ..Petitioner V/s. Administrative Officer, ..Respondents Municipal School Board & ors Mr. M. S. Lagu, Advocate, for the Petitioner Mr. N. R. Bubna, Advocate, for the Respondents CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR & R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 6TH APRIL, 2010 P.C. . Heard Counsel for the Petitioner. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. Counsel appearing for the Respondents waives notice. By consent, matter proceeded for final hearing. 3. The grievance in this Petition is in relation to unilateral withdrawal of pay scale of trained graduate teacher with effect from June, 2009 with all benefits thereof which was enjoyed by the Petitioner. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner 2 has qualification of B.A., B.Ed., although appointed as a primary teacher. Considering the qualification, the Petitioner was granted pay scale of trained graduate teacher while in service. That benefit has been withdrawn in terms of the impugned decision of the Respondents presumably on the basis of Full Bench decision of our High Court in the case of Jayashree Sunil Chavan v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2000 Bom 394. Indeed, in the said decision the Court has opined that no appointment of primary teacher can be made unless the incumbent possesses D. Ed. qualification which is one of the eligibility criteria. 4. However, the Respondents have overlooked the Government Circular dated 14th November, 1979 which provides B. Ed qualification as category of trained graduate teacher and appointment of such teacher can be made in the Schools having Stds. 1st to 7th. This aspect was considered by the Division Bench of our High Court in the case of Shri Tukaram Tryambak Chaudhari Versus State of Maharashtra decided on 6th May, 2004 in Writ Petition No.4632 of 1999 and companion cases. That decision has been upheld by the 3 Apex Court which decision is reported in (2007) 9 Supreme Court Cases 201. In other words, there is no bar or prohibition of appointing teacher having B. Ed. qualification, and is permissible in terms of said Government Resolution of 1979. This aspect of the matter will have to be considered by the appropriate authority and if the Petitioner qualifies the said criteria, the question of withdrawing the pay scale of trained graduate teacher does not arise. In that situation, the Petitioner would be entitled to avail of the said trained graduate pay scale of teacher. 5. Instead of examining that question for the first time in exercise of jurisdiction, we think it appropriate to direct Respondent No.1 to consider the same on its own merits in accordance with law. That be done as expeditiously as possible and in any case, not later than 6 weeks from the date of production of a copy of this Order in the Office of Respondent No.1. All questions in the said proceeding are left open. The Respondent No.1 after passing final Order on the said issue may communicate the Order to the Petitioner within 8 weeks from today. Till that decision is taken, no precipitative action 4 shall be taken against the Petitioner. In the event, Respondent No.1 was to decide the issue in favour of the Petitioner. The proposed Order to be passed by the Respondent No.1 shall make provision and issue direction for payment of difference in the amount of pay scale as trained graduate teacher to the Petitioner. 6. Petition allowed on the above terms. (R.M.SAVANT, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)