Lsp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2553 of 1998 Smt.Susheela Sadashiv Mande Sambhaji Colony, New Timber Area, Sangli, Maharashtra. ...Petitioner V/s. The Secretary, Latte Education Society, Sangli, 2. The Member, Prathamik Vidyamandir Road, Vishrambaug, Sangli. 3. The Deputy Director of Education, Kolhapur Region, Kolhapur 4. Shri M.B.Mali, Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Kolhapur. ...Respondents Mr.L.S.Deshmukh, Advocate iby Mr.S.S.Pakale, Advocate for the Petitioner None for the Respondents CORAM CORAM CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. DATED DATED DATED : 8th February , 2008 : 8th February , 2008 : 8th February , 2008 ORAL ORAL ORAL JUDGEMENT JUDGEMENT JUDGEMENT The Petitioner impugns the judgement and order dated 3-2-1998 rendered by the School Tribunal, kolhapur dismissing Appeal No.115 of 1992 filed by the Petitioner. The Petitioner at the relevant time possessed the qualifications of M.A. B.Ed. and was appointed for the first time as an Assistant Teacher in 2 the primary school w.e.f. 7-7-1989 and till the end of the academic year i.e. 30-4-1992. Similar appointments were given to her in the next two academic years i.e. 1990-91 and 1991-92. By notice dated 30-4-1992 she was informed that her tenure would come to an end by efflux of time and the said notice was challenged in Appeal No. 115/1992 filed under Section 9 of the MEPS Act, 1977 (the Act for short). 2. By the impugned Judgement the School Tribunal has held against the appellant/petitioner for the following reasons:- (a) the petitioner was over aged i.e. she was above the age of 28 years when she was appointed for the first time on 7-7-1989 and neither the management nor the petitioner had approached the Dy. Director of Education for permission to relax the upper age limit as required under Rule 9(4) of the MEPS Rules, 1981, (b) the petitioner’s appointment was not made against a clear vacancy and infact there was no such vacancy available for the post of Assistant Teacher in the primary School, (c) the appointment of the petitioner in every academic 3 year was made on temporary basis and at no point of time either advertisement was released and applications were invited or the management had sent proposals seeking approval to her appointment even on temporary basis and (d) the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualifications of S.S.C. + D.Ed. 3. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Jayshree Jayshree Jayshree Sunil Chavan v/s. The State of Maharashtra Sunil Chavan v/s. The State of Maharashtra Sunil Chavan v/s. The State of Maharashtra (2000 (2000 (2000 (3) 605) (3) 605) (3) 605) has held that for the appointment as assistant teachers in the private schools, the candidates must possess the D.Ed. qualifications and graduate teachers with B.Ed. are not eligible for appointment in the primary schools. The law laid down by this Court, therefore, confirms the view taken by the School Tribunal in the instant case. The School Tribunal held that the petitioner could not be treated as a deemed permanent teacher within the meaning of Section 5(2) of the Act and she was discontinued on completion of her tenure in the academic year 1991-92. 4. No fault could be found with the reasoning set out by the School Tribunal and the petitioner’s Appeal 4 was rightly dismissed. Hence, this petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. 5. Rule discharged with no order as to costs. [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.] [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.] [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.]