: 1 : 2123-10-wp-Judgment=.sxw USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2123 OF 2010 Mr. Anil B. Honmane .. Petitioner v/s. The Chairman, Kai Ramchandra Patil Shikshan Sanstha & Ors. .. Respondents ......... Mr. S.G. Deshmukh i/b Mr. Abhijeet J. Kandarkar for the petitioner Mr. P.I. Khemani, AGP for respondent nos. 3 and 4. Mr. Ramdas Shelke for respondent nos. 1 and 2. ......... CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J DATE : 1st DECEMBER,2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the judgment and order dated 27th January, 2010 passed by learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Kolhapur Region, Kolhapur in Appeal No.43 of 2008. The petitioner was the appellant and was challenging the order dated 25th June, 2008 terminating his services as Teacher. The facts leading to this appeal in short can be narrated as under. : 2 : 2123-10-wp-Judgment=.sxw 2. The petitioner was a permanent employee of the respondent no.1. He was appointed as ‘Teacher’ in the year 2000. He has qualification of M.A. B. Ed. His appointment was made on clear and permanent vacancy. It is common ground that in 2008, the School run by the respondent Management was a full fledged School having 5th to 10th division. The permissible number of teaching staff was 9 including the Head Master. Approval of appointment of Teachers is granted by the Education Department of the respondent no.2. When the proposal for approval of the petitioner’s appointment was submitted to the Department, there were several queries and ultimately it refused to grant approval because the petitioner was appointed on post in the scale of D.Ed. Qualified teacher and since he had higher but different qualification he was not eligible for appointment. So the petitioner’s services were terminated on 25th June, 2008. 3. The petitioner then filed the appeal. The same was contested and the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal dismissed it mainly on the ground that the petitioner’s appointment was not approved by the Department. After filing of this petition, the learned Counsel appearing for : 3 : 2123-10-wp-Judgment=.sxw the petitioner brought before this Court a copy of the Government Resolution dated 11th November, 2011. On perusal it is seen the government has removed doubt about eligibility of Teacher who held qualification of B.A.Ed but who were appointed in D.Ed. Scale. The Government Resolution now directs that the Teacher like the petitioner who held qualification of B.A.Ed. and who is appointed in D.Ed scale should be considered as trained Teacher. This Government Resolution thus removes the doubt about the petitioner’s eligibility for getting approval of his appointment. The learned AGP conceded that this Government Resolution would certainly help the petitioner getting his appointment approved. 4. In view of this, the petition should succeed. The impugned order stands set aside. The respondent no.2 shall accord approval for the appointment of the petitioner as trained Teacher and shall pay his salary, which is till not paid. (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.)