1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR LPA NO. 226 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4490 OF 1999 (Hemraj Jiwanlal Hanuwatkar vs. Panchsheel Education Society & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : S.A. BOBDE & F.M. REIS, JJ. JULY 06, 2009. Heard Mrs. Harshala Prabhu, Advocate holding for Shri Parchure, learned counsel for the appellant. This appeal is against the judgment of the learned Single Judge allowing the respondents writ petition against the order of the School Tribunal reinstating the appellant in service. The appellant was appointed temporarily as an Assistant Teacher for one academic year. Admittedly his qualifications are B.A., B.Com. and B.P.Ed. He does not have the requisite qualification for teaching general subjects such as Languages, Science etc. The Tribunal relied inter alia on a certificate which showed that the appellant had taught Physical Education along with Hindi and came to the conclusion that the appellant was a qualified teacher because he had B.P.Ed. 2 qualification. The learned Single Judge has reversed the findings of Tribunal on the ground that the appellant was appointed to teach the middle school classes on temporary basis on year to year basis and that there was no cogent evidence to prove that he was appointed as a Physical Training Instructor. The learned Single Judge observed that the orders approving the appellant’s appointment showed that his services have been approved temporarily on session to session basis because he possess the degree of B.A. and B.P. Ed. In the result, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not qualified since he did not possess B.Ed. qualification. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted before us that the appellant must be taken to be qualified since there is a certificate which shows that he taught Physical Education along with the subject of Hindi. It is not possible to accept this contention. What must be seen is the nature of the appointment. The appellant was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on a year to year basis. The appellant at no point of time appointed as Physical Training Instructor. It is possible that his appointment being of a temporary 3 nature, he may have taken some classes in a particular subject. In such circumstances, taking of such classes would not determine the nature of his appointment for the purpose of seeing whether a teacher has requisite qualification. In these circumstances, we see no reason to interfere and set aside the judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge. Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.