1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No.255/2007 in W.P.No.2803/2005 (d) Ashok Bhauraoji Udan ..vs.. The Secretary, Gramodhar Vidya Prasarak Shikshan Sanstha & ors. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. A. D. Mohogaonkar, Advocate for appellant. Mr. A. Shelat, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Mr. A. D. Sonak, A.G.P. for respondent no. 3. CORAM: S. A. BOBDE & F. M. REIS,JJ. DATED : 13 th July, 2009 1. Heard. 2. This is an appeal against judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court dated 21.12.2006 making rule absolute in the writ petition filed by respondent- Educational Institution. The appellant’s services were terminated by the respondent-Management. In an appeal filed by the appellant, the School Tribunal held that the appellant was duly qualified to be appointed in the respondent-School as per Rule 6 and Clause II of Schedule B appended to the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981. The Management assails the order of the School Tribunal mainly on the ground that the appellant was not qualified 2 as Assistant Teacher. It is an admitted fact that the appellant was temporarily appointed as an Assistant Teacher and the appellant has himself never claimed that he was appointed for imparting instructions in physical education. Admittedly, the appellant only possesses qualification of B.P.Ed. and not B.Ed. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the appellant did not have requisite qualification to be appointed as Assistant Teacher as he does not hold qualification of B.Ed. 3. In this view of the matter, relying on the judgment of this Court in Anna Manikrao Pethe ..vs.. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati and Aurangabad Division, Amravati & ors.; 1997 (3) Mh. L. J. 697; the learned Single Judge held that the appellant, being not qualified teacher, the appeal filed before the School Tribunal, should not have been entertained. We do not see any error in the judgment impugned in the appeal. This Court has, in Nilkanth Kawaji Shivankar..vs..Shivshakti Shikshan Sanstha, Kotha (Veni) &ors.(Judgment dated 29.06.2009 in L.P.A. No.134/2008), already held that the prescribed 3 qualification for the post of Assistant Teacher or Teacher appointed for teaching general subjects like History, Geography etc. is B.Ed. and for teachers, who impart instructions in physical education, the requisite qualification is B.P.Ed. In this view of the matter, there is no merit in the appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE kahale