1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 2598 of 2008 (Punjab Narayanrao Kathole Vs. Sewalal Jangal Kamgar Sahakari Sanstha & ors.) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's Orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. A.S. Chandrukar, Adv. For the petitioner. Mr. A.Z. Jibhkate, Adv. For R-1 & 2. Mr. Adgokar, A.G.P. for R-3. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATE : 15 th December, 2008 By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati, on 6th of December, 2007, in Appeal No. 64/2007, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. The petitioner was appointed in the year 2002 on the post of Higher Secondary Teacher by an appointment order dated 31/7/2002. The petitioner claimed to have obtained the B. Ed. training qualification while he was in service and passed his B.Ed. Examination on 24/6/2006. It is stated in the appeal filed by the petitioner that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 had also given a 2 guarantee letter dated 29/7/2003 by which they guaranteed to permit the petitioner to work on the post of Higher Secondary Teacher, after obtaining B.Ed. qualification. According to the petitioner, on 22/12/2006, the President of the petitioner no.1- Society informed the petitioner that his services were no longer required. The petitioner had challenged the alleged termination by the appeal. The appeal proceeded ex parte against the respondent nos. 1 and 2. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and on perusal of the record, came to a conclusion that the appointment of the petitioner was not in consonance with the provisions of Section 5 of the M.E.P.S. Act, 1977. The Tribunal held that the appointment of the petitioner was also not duly approved by the Education Officer as the petitioner was not possessing the requisite qualifications for appointment on the post of Higher Secondary Teacher. The Tribunal, therefore, held that the petitioner failed to prove that his services were illegally terminated with effect from 22/12/2006. 3 It is not in dispute that at the time of appointment on the post of Higher Secondary Teacher in the year 2002, the petitioner was not possessing the requisite qualifications for appointment on the post of Higher Secondary Teacher. The B.Ed. qualification was acquired by the petitioner in the year 2006. The petitioner was basing his claim in the appeal on the basis of two appointment orders issued to him in the years 2002 and 2003, till the end of those academic years. The petitioner also based his claim on the basis of the guarantee letter of the respondent nos. 1 and 2. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, the petitioner could not have claimed to have been in continuous employment with the respondent nos. 1 and 2 since the year 2002. The petitioners had not produced the advertisement on record to show that there was permission of the Deputy Director of Education to advertise the said post. Though the petitioner was not duly qualified to hold the post, the necessary permission of the Deputy Director of Education for relaxing the qualification on the basis of merits of the petitioner, was not sought by the 4 Management. Admittedly, the Deputy Director of Education had not granted an approval to the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Higher Secondary Teacher. In this background, the Tribunal held that the appointment of the petitioner was not made in consonance with the provisions of Section 5 of the Act of 1977. In these sets of facts, it can be clearly said that the temporary appointment of the petitioner expired at the end of the academic sessions 2002-2003 and 2003-2004. The Tribunal did not rely on the guarantee certificate issued by the Management to the petitioner. Even otherwise that guarantee certificate cannot be said to be enough to seek the regularization or permanency to the petitioner on the post of Higher Secondary Teacher. The judgment reported in the case of Nehru Jankalyan Bahu-uddeshiya Shikshan Sanstha & anr. Vs. Mohan Suryabhan Wanjari and anr. reported in 2003 (1) Mh.L.J . 425 and relied on by the counsel for the petitioner for seeking some compensation from the respondent nos. 1 and 2, cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case for granting that relief. There is no 5 jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal on 6/12/2007. The writ petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP