1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 1338/2009 (Saroj Dinkarrao Bedre VERSUS Bhartiya Dnaanprasarak Mandal & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : APRIL 8, 2009. None appears on behalf of the petitioner. However, I have perused the impugned order dated 03.05.2008 as well as the memorandum of appeal filed before the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati and the grounds raised in the petition. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the judgment passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati on 03.05.2008 dismissing an appeal filed by the petitioner under the provisions of Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act,1977. 2 It was the case of the petitioner before the Tribunal that she was appointed in clear vacancy by the respondent-management by an appointment order dated 01.02.1991. It is the case of the petitioner that as trained primary teachers were not available, the respondent- management had appointed her as an untrained teacher. The petitioner was paid a fixed salary. It was stated by the petitioner in the appeal memo that neither the Education Department nor the management had recommended her name for the D.Ed. Course. It was the case of the petitioner that the management could not have terminated the services of the petitioner when she had put in thirteen years of service with the respondent- management. According to the petitioner, the order of termination was bad as no enquiry was conducted against the petitioner though she was a confirmed employee. 3 The management denied the claim of the petitioner and stated in the written statement that the petitioner was an untrained teacher and did not have the necessary training qualification. According to the management, the services of the petitioner were temporary and continued on year to year basis. It was pleaded by the management that the services of the petitioner come to an end at the end of the academic session 2004-05, on 30.04.2005 and the case of the petitioner that her services were orally terminated with effect from 29.06.2005 was not correct. According to the respondent, the petitioner could not have claimed permanency in view of the fact that the petitioner was an untrained graduate. On an appreciation of the material produced by the parties on record, the Tribunal, by the impugned judgment dated 03.05.2008, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. The Tribunal held that the petitioner was not a trained graduate and 4 did not fulfill the requisite criteria for seeking appointment as an Assistant Teacher in the school, in permanent vacancy. The Tribunal held that the Government Resolution dated 10.02.1994 also did not apply to the facts of the case as the petitioner was not appointed prior to the cut-off date i.e. 10.02.1989. Even otherwise, the Tribunal found that though the petitioner had claimed that the Education Department and the management had not recommended her name for postal D.Ed. training course, there was nothing produced by the petitioner on record to show that she had applied to the Education Officer to recommend her name for postal D.Ed. Course. The Tribunal found that even assuming that there was an inaction on the part of the management or the Education Officer in not recommending the name of the petitioner for postal D.Ed. Course, that could not have been a subject matter of the appeal filed under the Act of 1977. The 5 Tribunal held that the petitioner could not have sought the relief of reinstatement in service as she was an untrained graduate at the time of alleged termination of her services and also at the time of filing of the appeal before the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati. There is no error whatsoever in the judgment passed by the Industrial Court on 03.05.2008, much less, a jurisdictional error so as to interfere with the same in exercise of the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE