1 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.714 OF 2002. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5797 OF 2005. Pandit S/o Kisanrao Lokhare, Age 31 years, Occ.Service, in Chhatrapati Shivaji Vidyalaya, Bembli (Kh.) R/o C/o Lasure Sir, Wada of Datta Biradar, Walandi, Tq. Devani, Dist. Latur. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. Gramin Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Walandi, Tq. Devani, Dist. Latur, through its President. 2. The Education Officer, (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Latur. 3. The Head Master, Chhatrapati Shivaji Vidyalaya, Bembli (Kh.), Taluka Devani, Dist. Latur. ... Respondents. ... Mr.Sanjay Bhosale, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.G.Radrawar, advocate for the Respondent No. 1. Respondent No.2 served - absent. 2 Mr.S.R.Kedar, advocate holding for Mr.Vivek Bhavthankar, advocate for the Respondent No.3. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 14.07.2009. ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the judgment and order rendered by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal in Appeal No.71/2001, whereby his appeal filed against otherwise termination dated 10.04.2001, from service as Assistant Teacher came to be dismissed. 2. Indisputably, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in School run by the Respondent No.1. He was appointed for the first time by order dated 26.6.1996 and was working as such up till 10.4.2001. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner is Graduate in Arts faculty and also possesses B.P.Ed. qualification. He was allegedly terminated by the Respondent No.3 under verbal 3 instructions w.e.f. 10.4.2001. He, therefore, challenged the oral termination order by filing Appeal No.71/2001 before the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Aurangabad U/s 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (for short, the MEPS Act). The learned Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal, held that the petitioner is not duly qualified for appointment as Assistant Teacher. For, he does not possess degree of Bachelor's in Education. The learned Presiding Officer held that the petitioner failed to acquire training qualification (B.Ed.) though he had given an undertaking dated 3.7.1998 to the Respondent No.1 to the effect that he would complete the B.Ed. course within a period of three (3) years from joining of the service. Hence, the School Tribunal declined to interfere with the termination order. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. The appointment order issued to the petitioner on 26.6.1996 does not indicate that he 4 was appointed as a Physical Instructor or Physical Teacher. There is nothing on record to show that there is sanctioned post of Physical Instructor or Teacher on establishment of the Respondent No.1 and was lying vacant at the material time. The appointment orders placed on record go to show that he was appointed on yearly basis from time to time as Assistant Teacher. He was assigned the work of teaching in English, History and Geography. Needless to say, he was not appointed to work as Physical Instructor. 5. The petitioner himself has produced on record copy of his affidavit-cum-undertaking dated 3.7.1995. It appears that before his first appointment, the petitioner gave an undertaking to the effect that he would complete B.Ed. course within a period of three (3) years from joining of the duty as Assistant Teacher. He further undertook that he would not be able to complete the B.Ed. course within the stipulated period of three (3) years then he will voluntarily give up the service of the School. It is clear therefore, that on the basis of his such 5 undertaking, the appointment order was issued in his favour. He was given sufficient opportunity to acquire the necessary qualification of B.Ed. He did not avail the opportunity. 6. A Single Bench of this Court in "Shivshakti Shikshan Sanstha Kotha (Veni) and another Vs. Nilkanth Kawaduji Shivankar and another" 2005 (2) Bom.C.R. 105, held that qualification of B.P.Ed. is not substitute for qualification of B.Ed. and they are not equivalent to each other. It is held that a candidate having B.Com., B.P.Ed. qualification is not eligible to be appointed as Assistant Teacher in substantive capacity for teaching subject. 7. As noticed hereinabove, the petitioner was appointed to teach subjects viz; History, Geography, English. Necessarily, it follows that he ought to have been continued if he had acquired the qualification as B.Ed. He is ineligible for the appointment as Assistant Teacher due to lack of degree in Education. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment 6 and order rendered by the School Tribunal does not call for any interference. 8. In the result, the petition is dismissed. No costs. C.A.No.5797/2005 is also disposed of. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) Authenticated Copy (Pvt.Secy.to Hon'ble Judge) asp/office/wp71402