( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 600 OF 2002 1. Dnyan Mata Primary School, Sangamner, Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar, through its Principal. 2. P.J.S. Society Saint Wincent High School, Saint Wincent Street, Pune through its Secretary. PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. Mrs. Philomina Julian D’souza, R/o Sai Anant Apartment, New Nagar Road, Sangamner, Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar. 2. Administrative Officer, Municipal School Board, Sangamner Municipality, Sangamner, Tq. Sangamner, District Ahmednagar. 3. The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 601 OF 2002 1. Dnyan Mata Primary School Sangamner, Tq. Sangamner, District Ahmednagar, through its Principal. 2. P.J.S. Society, Saint Wincent High School, ( 2 ) Saint Wincent Street, Pune, through its Secretary. PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. Deepak s/o John Shelke, R/o Vijay Kuran Road, Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar. 2. Administrative Officer, Municipal School Board, Sangamner Municipality, Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar. 3. The State of Maharashtra. RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 602 OF 2002 1. Dnyan Mata Primary School, Sangamner, Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar, through its Principal. 2. P.J.S. Society Saint Wincent High School, Saint Wincent Street, Pune, through its Secretary. PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. Deepak s/o Kashinath Bhalerao, R/o Wadgaon Pan, Tq. Sangamner, District Ahmednagar. 2. Administrative Officer, Municipal School Board, Sangamner Municipality, Sangamner, Tq. Sangamner, District Ahmednagar. 3. The State of Maharashtra. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. S.V. Adwant, advocate for the petitioners in all three petitions. Mr. V.S. Bedre, advocate for respondent No.2 in all three petitions. ( 3 ) Mr. K.M. Suryawanshi, AGP for respondent NO.3/ State in all three petitions. None for respondent No. 1 in all three petitions. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 22nd June, 2009] ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. By these petitions, the petitioners seek to challenge the judgement and order dated 25th January, 2002, rendered by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Pune in appeal Nos. 80/2000, 82/2000 and 78/2000. 2. By the impugned judgements and orders, the learned Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal held that the respondents were duly qualified primary school teachers. The learned Presiding Officer further held that the termination of the respondents Philomina D’souza, Deepak Shelke and Deepak Bhalerao was illegal. The School Tribunal, therefore, directed reinstatement of these three (3) respondents by allowing their appeals. ( 4 ) 3. The respondents were admittedly appointed in the primary school run by the petitioner. Respondent Philomina is S.S.C., T.C.H. (Teachers Certificate Higher Course). She completed the T.C.H. Course from Karnataka as kannada being medium of instructions. She was appointed in service by letter dated 1st June, 1996. She was appointed on consolidated pay of Rs. 2000/- p.m. 4. Respondent Deepak Shelke was appointed on consolidated pay of Rs. 2300/- p.m., as per appointment letter dated 01-06-1997 as per his appointment in the month of June, 1997 without issuance of any appointment letter. His qualification is S.S.C. A.T.D. (Art Teachers Diploma). He was appointed as Craft Teacher for the primary section of the school. 5. Respondent Deepak Bhalerao was appointed by order of appointment dated 20-05-1995 on consolidated pay of Rs. 1200/- p.m. w.e.f. 20th May, 1995 as an Assistant Teacher for primary section of the petitioner’s school. His appointment was purely temporary for period from June, 1995 to April, 1996. He ( 5 ) is qualified as S.S.C., A.T.D. (Art Teachers Diploma). 6. The respondents were terminated by the petitioner school in 2000 for want of approval to their appointment by the Education Officer. It was noticed that they were not qualified to work as trained teachers. Consequently, their services were terminated by the petitioner. 7. The respondents challenged the termination orders by filing the appeals referred to hereinabove. The School Tribunal allowed their appeals holding that they were the duly qualified Assistant Teachers and could not have been terminated from service. The School Tribunal held that the termination orders were invalid and liable to be quashed. The School Tribunal considered T.C.H. qualification of respondent Philomina D’souza as one equivalent to D.Ed. It has been further held that A.T.D. is also a duly recognized qualification for a primary teacher and, therefore, the appointments of the respondents have been held as proper and the termination orders were held as illegal. ( 6 ) 8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and learned AGP for respondent No. 3. None appeared for the respondent No. 1 i.e. the Assistant Teachers in these matters. 9. The core issue involved in these petitions is whether T.C.H. from Karnataka State is equivalent to D.Ed. and, therefore, termination of the respondent – Philomina could be regarded as illegal. Similarly, further issue is whether A.T.D. qualification in respect of other two (2) respondents could be regarded as valid one for the purpose of their appointments as Assistant Teachers for the primary section. 10. Mr. Adwant S.V., learned counsel for the petitioners, makes a statement that the respondents – Deepak Shelke and Deepak Bhalerao, in context of writ petition No. 601/2002 and 602/2002, are no more in service. They have not been reinstated nor they continued to serve with the petitioners. It appears that both of them have lost interest in the service. ( 7 ) 11. So far as case of respondent – Philomina (in writ petition No. 600/2002) is concerned, it is worthwhile to note that she is claiming benefit of the Government Resolutions dated 04-10-1989 and 13-05-1999. On perusal of the Government Resolution No. T.C.H. 2988/58/88 Sec.Edu.4 dated 4th October, 1989, it is quite clear that the previous condition to recognize only the school teachers who had completed D.Ed. From Kannada medium was relaxed and it was directed that until further orders, such school teachers who had completed their T.C.H. Course from Karnataka State shall be regarded as eligible for the appointment. If the purport of this Resolution dated 04-10-1989 is considered, then the T.C.H. Diploma, even from Kannada medium of instructions, could be regarded as the qualification for appointment as trained primary teacher. The relaxation of such condition was until next order. By Government Resolution dated 30th May, 1988, such school teachers who were in service prior to 01-08-1986 were held eligible. Still, however, by the Government Resolution dated 04-10-1989, those who had ( 8 ) completed the T.C.H. Diploma have been held eligible for such appointment. The contention of the petiitoner is that subsequently, modified instructions under the Government Resolution dated 13-05-1999 bearing No. TC No. 2998/125/87/Sec.Edu.-4 would be applicable only for appointment of such school teachers in Zilla Parishad schools. The Resolution dated 13th May, 1999 shows that such eligibility criterion was continued for appointments only upto 1999-2000. In other words, the primary school teachers who were appointed after the year 2000, were not entitled to seek the benefit of the relaxation of such condition. Respondent – Philomina was, however, appointed on 01-06-1996. Therefore, she could not be denied benefit of the relaxation which was available at the material time. The copy of the transfer certificate placed on record (P-16) shows that respondent Philomina D’souza completed her education in subjects including Kannada, Hindi and English as languages of instructions. There is no reason why the instructions in the relevant Government Resolutions could not be regarded as applicable to respondent Philomina D’souza. Her case is covered by the ( 9 ) relaxation of such conditions as per the Government Resolution dated 04-10-1989 and since she was appointed after 04-10-1989 and prior to the year 2000, there was no legal impediment in her such appointment. Considering these aspects, I do not find any substance in the contentions raised in writ petition No. 600/2002. 12. So far as the other two (2) respondents, namely, Deepak Shelke and Deepak Bhalerao, are concerned, not only that the respondents Deepak Shelke and Deepak Bhalerao are said to be out of service and they have not appeared in these petitions, the A.T.D. qualification cannot be regarded as equivalent to D.Ed. When there is no specific provision in this behalf. A plain reading of Rule-1 of Schedule-B appended to the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 would show that A.T.D. (Art Teachers Diploma) is not shown to be equivalent to D.Ed. (Diploma in Education). The Primary Teachers Certificate Examination or Diploma in Education Examination or a Diploma in Education (Pre-Primary of two years duration) would not include Art Teachers ( 10 ) Diploma i.e. A.T.D. In absence of any particular provision, in Schedule-B, the said respondents could not be treated as duly qualified primary teachers. The learned Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal committed patent error while allowing the appeals preferred by the said respondents. The impugned judgements will have, therefore, to be quashed. 13. In the result, the writ petition No. 600/2002 is dismissed whereas writ petitions No. 601/2002 and 602/2002 are allowed and that the reinstatement orders issued in favour of respondent No. 1 in both these petitions, namely, Deepak John Shelke and Deepak Kashinath Bhalerao are quashed. No costs. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/WP600-601-602-02