1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No. 287 of 2011 in Writ Petition No. 5541 of 2009 (d) Sukhlal Vithobaji Ramteke VERSUS Kranti Shikshan Sanstha and others - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. P. N. Shende, Advocate for the appellant. Mrs. M. H. Deshmukh, Advocate for the respondent no.3. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATE : JULY 12, 2011. Heard Mr. P. N. Shende, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. M. H. Deshmukh, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent no.3. We see nothing wrong with the judgment passed by the School Tribunal, Nagpur on 25/6/2009, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant under the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. The tribunal found that the appellant had not possessed the training qualification at the time of his appointment and the appellant was also not appointed by following the due procedure, prescribed by law. The tribunal found that the appellant was appointed in place of one Shri Naktode, who had filed an appeal before the Education Officer and since the 2 Education Officer had directed the management to reinstate Mr. Naktode in service, there was no vacancy on the said post. The learned Single Judge considered the fact that the appellant was not possessing the training qualification at the time of his appointment and the services of the appellant were terminated on 06/8/1998, when he had just secured the B.Ed. training qualification on 26/6/1998. Since, an untrained employee does not have any right to continue on the post, the learned Single Judge found that there was nothing wrong with the view taken by the School Tribunal. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed, with no order JUDGE JUDGE Diwale