IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 8083 OF 2007 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 8083 OF 2007 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 8083 OF 2007 Mrs. Geeta Chandrakant Kenchi ] .. Petitioner Versus 1. State of Maharashtra & 3 ors. ] .. Respondents Mr. G.S. Baj for the petitioner. Mr. S.R. Nargolkar, AGP,for the respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Sanjeev Rairkar for the respondent No.4. CORAM: S.B. MHASE & S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATED: 09TH APRIL, 2008 P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is SSC-TCH. The TCH course is run by the Government of Karnataka. The petitioner has completed this qualification in the year 1989. At that time, in Maharashtra the education qualification required for a primary teacher was SSC-D.Ed and, therefore, by the Government Resolution dated 24/10/1989, equivalence was given to the SSC-D.Ed. of Maharashtra to SSC-TCH in Karnataka. However, thereafter the Government of Maharashtra prescribed that : 2 : the minimum qualification for D.Ed. course shall be HSC and thereby the required qualification of a primary teacher was rendered as HSC-D.Ed. and in view of this, the SSC-TCH could not be treated as equivalent as stated in the Government Resolution on 24/10/1989. Therefore, the Government of Maharashtra has issued the Government Resolution dated 31st May, 1993 and have withdrawn the equivalence. We find that the Government of Maharashtra has done this properly on educational basis. 3. The petitioner is, as stated earlier, SSC-TCH from 1989. She was for the first time appointed as a teacher on 23/12/1993 i.e. after 31st May 1993 when the equivalence was withdrawn and, therefore, the petitioner could not have been appointed. On the basis of this, her services were not approved and ultimately, she was removed from the service in 1996. She approached this court by filing this Writ Petition in October, 2007. Prior to this, she has filed Civil Suit bearing No.1437 of 1996. The said suit was dismissed and the Appeal as against the said Suit was also dismissed. Thus, after having exhausted the civil remedies, the jurisdiction of this court has been invoked. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner tried to rely upon the judgment in the case of Narendra Narendra Narendra : 3 : Sakharam Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors. Sakharam Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors. Sakharam Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors. [2000 (3), Mh.L.J., 806] wherein it has been laid down that retrospective effect can be given. However, we find that retrospective effect has not been given in the Government Resolution withdrawing equivalence on 31st May, 1993 and the appointment of the petitioner is subsequent to the same and, therefore, the appointment of the petitioner could not have been done by the respondent-Management. One thing is clear that after 31st May, 1993, SSC-TCHs are not entitled to be appointed as primary teachers in Maharashtra in view of the enhanced requirement of qualification viz. HSC-D.Ed. 5. In view of the above, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- [S.S. SHINDE, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.] [S.B. MHASE, J.] [S.B. MHASE, J.] [S.B. MHASE, J.]