( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3739 OF 1991 Sandipan s/o Govardhan Khandagale, R/o Satwaiwadi, Post Terkheda, Tq. Kallam, District Osmanabad. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. The Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad. 3. Chairman, Subodha Bahu-Uddeshiyay Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Terkheda, Tal. Kallam, Dist. Osmanabad. 4. Secretary, Subodha Bahu-Uddeshiyay Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Terkheda, Tal. Kallam, Dist. Osmanabad. 5. Head Master, Subodh Vidya Mandir, Terkheda, Tq. Kallam, District Osmanabad. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. R.R. Suryawanshi, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.N. Jadhav, AGP for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. R.K. Jadhavar, advocate for respondents No. 3 to 5. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 12th March, 2010] ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. Challenge in this petition is to judgement and ( 2 ) order rendered by learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Aurangabad, in Appeal No. 74/1988. By the impugned judgement and order, the Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal was pleased to dismiss the appeal filed under section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, 1977 (for short, “the MEPTS Act”). 2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher in a school run by the respondents No. 3 to 5. The petitioner’s appointment was continued for three (3) consecutive academic years between 1985 to 1988. It appears that he was terminated from service w.e.f. 06-07-1988 after service of order of the same date. He was informed that he was directed to appear on 15-06-1988 and join the duty, but since he had not complied with the directions, he was being discharged from service. 3. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner was S.S.C., C.T.C. (Craft Training Course) when he was appointed in the school on 16-06-1985. He ( 3 ) asserted that his service was continued for more than two years and, therefore, he acquired status as permanent employee due to deeming effect available under section 5 (2) of the MEPS Act. He contended that he was appointed in a permanent and vacant post. He further contended that the respondent No. 3 had obtained his signature on blank paper with a view to utilize the same for preparing his signature letter. He contended that he could not have been terminated by the respondents No. 3 to 5. He alleged that in June, 1987, he passed B.A. Examination. He submitted that though he was duly qualified for appointment as Craft Teacher, yet, his services were wrongly terminated without following due procedure. Hence, he preferred appeal before the School Tribunal. 4. The contention of the respondents was that the petitioner was not a duly qualified trained teacher. It was alleged that the petitioner could not be appointed as Assistant Teacher because he did not possess necessary qualification to seek such appointment. They further submitted that the petitioner was appointed as ( 4 ) Assistant Teacher on humanitarian ground because he wanted to complete D.Ed. course as in-service candidate. It was contended that the school’s recognition had been withdrawn on 16-06-1985 and, therefore, there was no educational Institution in existence at the relevant time to absorb the petitioner in a clear and vacant post. It was contended that the petitioner was not a permanent employee and, therefore, his services could be terminated by giving one month’s notice. It was contended that at end of May, 1988, the service period of the petitioner stood terminated. 5. After hearing the parties and on consideration of evidence tendered by them, the School Tribunal held that the petitioner was not a qualified Assistant Teacher. It was held that the petitioner could not have been appointed on the post because it was middle section of the school for which the necessary qualification was that the person ought to be a graduate alongwith required Diploma in the Art. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and ( 5 ) learned A.G.P. 7. The material question to be determined is whether the petitioner was appointed as a probationer and that he was duly qualified to work as Assistant Teacher. It is an admitted fact that he was only S.S.C. pass-out and was not having any D.Ed. or B.Ed. qualification. At the relevant time, he was only S.S.C. and having Diploma in Craft Training. It is necessary to examine whether a candidate having only S.S.C. qualification alongwith C.T.C., was eligible for appointment as Assistant Teacher. 8. The copies of appointment orders (Exh-B, colly.) purport to show that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher from time to time. The appointment orders go to show that the appointment was on purely temporary basis for the relevant academic year. True, such appointment letters issued from time to time may not indicate that he was appointed against permanent and vacant post. It may be gathered, however, that he was given afresh appointment for each academic ( 6 ) year only with a view to deny him status as a permanent employee in view of section 5 (2) of the MEPS Act. 9. Clinching question is as to whether the petitioner was qualified for appointment as an Assistant Teacher in the Secondary School. For this purpose, it is important to see Schedule-B under Rule 2 (1) (j) and 6 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (for short, “the MEPS Rules”). First part of Schedule-B deals with qualifications for primary teachers. The second part of Schedule-B deals with qualification for trained teachers in secondary school and junior colleges of education. In the present case, the qualification required for appointment of an Assistant Teacher in secondary school will have to be taken into account. Mr. Suryawanshi invited my attention to Entry No. (iv) of sub-Rule (2) of Rule II in Schedule-B.. The relevant Sub-Rule reads as follows : “(2) For Undergraduate Teachers : (i) A Diploma in Education of Nagpur and ( 7 ) Bombay Universities which is awarded two years after Secondary School Certificate Examination; (ii) A Secondary Teachers’ Certificate of the Education Department of Maharashtra State or the Teachers’ Diploma of any statutory University, if the person holding it is appointed for the first time before the 1st October 1970 and continues to serve as a teacher with or without break after that date. (iii)A Certificate in Physical Education recognised by Government, if the person had acquired the said qualification before the 31st May, 1971 and was appointed on or before the 20th September, 1978. (iv) A Diploma in Education (Primary) awarded by Government; or (v) Any other equivalent diploma or certificate approved by Government or Inter- University Board.” Sub-Rule (4) in Schedule-B purports to show that a certificate having completed the Special Course in Craft run by the Directorate of Technical Education or any other equivalent qualification may be sufficient for such appointment. 10. The appointment orders issued to the petitioner ( 8 ) do not show that he was appointed as Craft Teacher. His appointment was of an Assistant Teacher. There is nothing on record to show that he was assigned work to teach subject pertaining to “Crafts”. It appears from initial order dated 17-06-1985 for appointment of the petitioner that he was appointed in pursuance to his application dated 10-06-1985. Thus, from date of his application, within seven days, he was appointed as an Assistant Teacher. There was no advertisement of the post. The name of the petitioner was taken on the scroll (Exh-C). Had it been a fact that the petitioner was specifically appointed as a Crafts Teacher, perhaps, he could be treated as a qualified teacher within the meaning of Rule (2) (iv) of Schedule-B. He never pleaded that he was appointed as Crafts Teacher. For his appointment as an Assistant Teacher, with the respondents No. 3 to 5, there was no eligibility with him. The relevant entry in Schedule-B purports to show that for appointment as an Assistant Teacher, a Diploma in Education is essential. The petitioner did not fulfill the criterion. ( 9 ) 11. In the meanwhile, recognition of the school was withdrawn by virtue of communication dated 15-08-1984. The school was again recognized after July, 1988. The petitioner was not serving during the relevant period, in the lawful manner. In other words, the school was being run unauthorisedly for the above period between midst of August, 1984 till July, 1988. It, therefore, appears that the petitioner was appointed without any legal authority and without adherence to any formality. Considering these aspects, the School Tribunal was right in dismissing the appeal. There appears no perversity committed by the School Tribunal. 12. In the result, the petition is dismissed. No costs. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/wp3739-91