1 WP-5444-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5444 OF 2011 Dasarath Bhalchandra Belhekar ..Petitioner Vs Sayaji Shankar Kumbhar and ors. ..Respondents -- Mr.Sachin Chindarkar, for petitioner. -- CORAM : R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE : 21 st SEPTEMBER, 2011 P.C.: Heard Mr.Sachin Chindarkar, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2] By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 19 th May, 2010 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Pune Region, Pune in Appeal No.23 of 2009. By that order, the School Tribunal allowed the appeal preferred by respondent no.1 herein under Section 9(1)(b) of the Maharashtra 2 WP-5444-11.sxw Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and set aside the promotion of the petitioner herein – respondent no.4 to the post of Head Master with effect from 1 st June, 2009 / 2 nd February, 2009 3] Respondent no.1 filed appeal contending inter alia that respondent no.2 herein – Management had appointed the petitioner as Assistant Teacher from 11 th October, 1982. He is having educational qualification of M.A., B.Ed. The post of Headmaster is vacant from 1 st June, 2008 due to superannuation of Shri.A.K.Awati. Respondent no.5 before tribunal is senior and respondent nos.6 and 7 were junior. However, respondent no.5 before the Tribunal has relinquished his right to the post of Headmaster. Though the petitioner herein who was respondent no.4 before the Tribunal was junior to him as also does not possess requisite qualification for the post of Headmaster, respondent no.2 herein promoted him to the post of Headmaster by superseding seniority of respondent no.1 and other senior teachers. One of the grievances of respondent no.1 was of that the petitioner is having educational qualification of G.D. Art, 3 WP-5444-11.sxw and Hindi Shikshak Sanad. The Tribunal allowed the appeal of respondent no.1 relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Jalgaon Zilla Kala Adhyapak Sangh Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1997(1) Mh.L.J. 51. 4] Mr.Chindarkar relying upon the Government Resolution dated 25 th November, 1988 and in particular, paragraph 3 thereof contended that the petitioner has necessary qualification for promotion to the post of Headmaster. He, therefore, submitted that the School Tribunal Committed serious error in allowing the appeal of the first respondent. In support of this submission, he relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Jalgaon Zilla Kala Adhyapak Sangh (supra). Paragraph 6 of the said judgment reads as under :- “6. Rule 5 sub-rule (2) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, prescribes that an Assistant Head/Supervisor of a secondary school including night school and girls' school shall be a graduate possessing Bachelor degree in teaching or education or any other qualification recognised by Government 4 WP-5444-11.sxw as equivalent thereto. The clause commencing from 'possessing Bachelor's degree in teaching or education or any other qualification recognised by Government as equivalent thereto' will have to be read as a clause adding to the basic qualification that he should be a graduate otherwise an anomaly would be created that a person who is not graduate but holds any diploma course which is equivalent to the degree in education would be entitled to be appointed as Assistant Head or Supervisor. Similar anomaly would be there in respect of the qualifications to the head of the secondary school. The whole scheme appears to be that the person to be considered for these posts should be first graduate in any faculty whatsoever and then he should possess the required qualification in the art of teaching either B.Ed. if he has to teach relevant subjects or B.P. Ed. if he has to teach physical education only or courses like A.M. which have been recognised to be equivalent to degree in teaching. Therefore, no person who is not a graduate and in addition to it holds this degree can be held entitled for the promotion to the post of the Supervisor or Assistant Head or Head. Even assuming that this has created some hardship in respect of the drawing teachers, it cannot be remedied by a different interpretation unless the Government wants to amend the rules. Petitioner No. 2 is not a graduate and holds a qualification which is 5 WP-5444-11.sxw equivalent to the degree in education. Therefore, his claim to the post of the Assistant Head and for the inclusion in the category "C" cannot be considered..............”. 5] In view of this, I do not find that the School Tribunal committed any error in allowing the appeal. The petition, accordingly, fails and the same is dismissed. [R.G.KETKAR, J.]