1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.3101 OF 2008 Khan Nafees Unisa. ...Petitioner. Vs. Jamaat & Madrasa Noorul Islam & Ors. ...Respondents. .... Mr. Mihir Desai for the Petitioner. Mr.Shaikh Nasir Masih for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. S.N. Patil, AGP for Respondent Nos.3 to 5. ..... CORAM :DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. May 5, 2008. P.C.: The Petitioner completed her B.Sc. Degree in 1989 and B.Ed in 1992. She was appointed as a Headmistress on 23rd December 1999 purely on a temporary basis for a period of two years from 23rd December 1999 until 22nd December 2001. Her services were terminated on 21st November 2001 and the communication of the management takes note of the fact that the period of temporary appointment was due to expire on 22nd December 2001. The qualification prescribed for a Head of a Secondary School is that the 2 candidate must have five years' full time teaching experience, after graduation, in a Secondary School or Junior College, out of which at least two years' experience shall be after acquiring a Bachelor's Degree in Education. Under Rule 3(2), the Deputy Director of Education is entitled to grant a relaxation of the requirement of teaching experience and not of the qualifications of the candidate. This position which is clear from Rule 3(2) has also been dealt with in the judgment in Shri Poorna Prajna Education vs. Smt. Trita Harishchandra Katkar (Writ Petition 2511 of 2003 decided on 7th August 2006). The Petitioner did not possess the requirements under the rules. She was appointed on a temporary basis for a specified term which came to an end. Subsequently on 7th February 2003, the Petitioner was reinstated to perform the duties of Assistant Teacher with effect from 22nd February 2003. The Petitioner filed an appeal which is pending before the School Tribunal. The merits of that appeal do not fall for consideration in these proceedings. These proceedings arise out of the order passed by the Tribunal dismissing the appeal against the order of termination. The order of the Tribunal impugned in these proceedings does not suffer from any error 3 apparent since both on the ground that the Petitioner was purely temporary and she did not fulfill the requirement for appointment as a Headmistress as on the date of the appointment, the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be said to suffer from any infirmity. There is no merit in the petition which is accordingly dismissed. ......