1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. L.P.A. No. 538/2010 in WRIT PETITION NO.4673/2003 (Ku. Maya Shripat Badwalk .vs. Progressive Education Society, through President and ors. ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Mr. A.Z. Jibhkate, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. Subhash Paliwal, Advocate for Respondents 1 & 2. Mr. N.S. Khubhalkar, AGP for Respondent no.3. .......... CORAM : S.A. BOBDE & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATED : NOVEMBER 16, 2010 Heard. This appeal is against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court setting aside the judgment of the School Tribunal by which the Tribunal has set aside termination order in the case of the appellant and directed reinstatement with 50 % back wages. The appellant was employed with the Education Society and in spite of the requirement in the law, she failed to obtain the requisite training qualification for a long period of 11 years. After the Management terminated her services, she approached the School Tribunal which set aside the termination oder by granting 50 % back wages. In a writ petition preferred 2 by the respondent/Management, the learned Single Judge of this Court came to the conclusion that the Act contemplates the appointment in a clear vacancy of a qualified person. Since the appellant failed to obtain the requisite training qualification necessary for a primary teacher, the termination of the services was justified. The learned Single Judge further noted that the termination of services were preceded by a notice to show cause why the appellant did not complete the training qualifications and only after considering her reply, the termination was effected after finding that there was no justification. The learned Single Judge has observed that the Act and Rules contemplate the appointment of a qualified teachers only with a view to impart proper training to the students. The learned Single Judge has further observed that merely because there is relaxation, it does not mean that teacher can remain without acquiring training qualification. We are in agreement with the observations of the learned Single Judge since the relaxation policy contemplates that in- service teachers should acquire qualification while doing their job. Mr. Jibhkate, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it is the Management which failed in its duty to allow the teachers to obtain training qualification through postal courses. Mr. Paliwal, learned counsel for respondents no.1 and 2 vehemently opposed this submission on the ground that there is no such plea taken by the appellant either before the Tribunal or before the learned Single Judge. The learned counsel further submitted that the appellant did not at any point of time apply to the Management or any 3 Authority for being allowed to avail of the said course. We are not inclined to entertain this argument in absence of the foundation in the pleadings. In the result, we see no merit in this appeal which is hereby dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE halwai