1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 1165/2008 (Sudhodhan Sadashiv Meshram Vs. The E.O., Z.P. Bhandara & ors.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. Shashikant Borkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.B. Patel, A.G.P. For respondent no.1. Mr. Tambulkar, Advocate, for the respondent no.2. Mr. Apurva De, Advocate, for the respondent no.4. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JULY 15 , 2009 . Shri Borkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, states that he has returned the case papers to the petitioner who is present in the Court today. Though the petitioner is present in the Court today, he is neither ready to argue the matter, nor has sought time for engagement of another counsel. In such circumstances, I have perused the petition along with the impugned order dated 15/1/2008 with the assistance of the learned counsel for the respondents. On a consideration of the relevant documents and the impugned order, it appears that the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nagpur, did not commit any error in dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. The Tribunal found that the petitioner was not duly qualified to be appointed as an Assistant Teacher at the time of his initial appointment in the academic 2 session 1991-92 and till the termination of his services, on 6th of May, 1996. The Tribunal found that the petitioner was temporarily appointed on year to year basis till a trained candidate was available. The services of the petitioner came to an end at the end of the academic session 1995-96, on 9th of May, 1996. After the services of the petitioner came to an end, the respondent- Management advertised all the sanctioned posts in the daily newspaper. The petitioner had not appeared at the interview and a suitable trained graduate teacher was appointed in the post which was held by the petitioner till the end of academic session 1995-96. The Tribunal rightly held, on an appreciation of the material on record, that the petitioner was not duly qualified to be appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher at the time of his appointment and, therefore, the appointment of the petitioner was not in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 of the Act of 1977. In view of the aforesaid findings, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. There is no jurisdictional error in the order passed by the Presiding Officer on 15/1/2008. The said order cannot be interfered with in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP