1 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3772 OF 2001 Mrs. M. Bharucha and anr .. Petitioner -versus Mr. Vincent Arokiyaswamy .. Respondent. Mr. Madhav Jamdar, for the Petitioner Mr. A. P. Vanarse, AGP for the State. CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED: 8th April, 2010 P.C. 1. Called out from the final hearing board. 2. This matter is listed under the caption of 'final disposal' as none appeared for the respondent on the last occasion. The petitioner management has challenged the order dated 25.4.2001 whereby the School Tribunal by setting aside the order of termination directed the management to reinstate the respondent as P.T. teacher w.e.f .11.7,1998 with full back wages. This Court, however, after hearing parties on 2lst December,2001, while admitting the petition, granted interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b) and that resulted into stay of the impugned order. Liberty to respondent to apply for modification of this order in case 2 he acquire the prescribed qualification was also granted. 3. The said order maintained even by the Division Bench of this Court. No application of whatsoever nature moved by the respondent till this date. The learned Tribunal made following observation in para 8 of the impugned order which is reproduced as under: “The qualifications as laid down indicate that a person to be appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Primacy Section is required to be passed S.S.C. Examination or equivalent with Diploma in Education Examination or equivalent. In the present case admittedly, the Appellant was qualified as S.S.C. However, at the time of his appointment as an Assistant Teacher (Primary) by the Respondent, he was not holding any training qualification such as Diploma in Education or equivalent. Therefore, it is very clear that the Appellant was not duly qualified for appointment as an Assistant Teacher (Primary) and therefore, his appointment can be accepted as an appointment as per the provisions of section 5(l) of the Act. Therefore, my answer on the point No.1 is in the negative.” 4. It appears that respondent inspite of the liberty granted not applied for the post after acquiring requisite qualification as 3 specified and so given, therefore, just cannot be said to be bad in law. So any appointment which made in contravention of section 5(l) of the Act, is therefore, void in law. The appeal in the circumstances is not maintainable. In the result, the petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) with liberty to respondent to apply for modification if any. Rule is made absolute. No costs. ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)