:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8041 OF 2005 Sau. Ratnamala Sudhakar Katkar ..Petitioner Vs. The President/Secretary Dnyanganga Education Trust and ors. ..Respondents Mr. A.A. Garge for petitioner. Mr. U.A. Kohiz for respondent nos.1 and 2 absent. Mr. R.M. Patne, AGP for respondent no.3. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. Date : August 17, 2006. Date : August 17, 2006. Date : August 17, 2006. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Garge the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Patne the learned AGP. 2. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the Judgment and Order of the School Tribunal whereby her appeal :2: filed under Section 9 of the M.E.P.S. Act, 1977 came to be dismissed on 30/7/2005. Mr. Garge has pointed out that the petitioner had approached the School Tribunal earlier in Appeal No.67 of 1998 and the same was dismissed by the School Tribunal on 5/4/2003 on the ground that the petitioner was in service and there was no other ground. As per Mr. Garge after the appeal was dismissed on 5/4/2003 and 6/4/2003 being the holiday for the school, when the petitioner reported on 7/4/2003 she was given the order of termination and, therefore, she approached the School Tribunal afresh in Appeal No.15 of 2003. 3. The School Tribunal in the impugned decision has proceeded on the basis that the petitioner was removed from service on 30/4/1998 and there was no termination order issued on 7/4/2003. The School Tribunal noted further that the petitioner did not challenge the termination order dated 30/4/1998 and she was never in service after 30/4/1998. In such circumstances the petitioner’s contentions that she was removed from service on 7/4/2003 was turned down. This approach of the School Tribunal is not only :3: inconsistent but, in fact, unsustainable on any judicial canon, more so when in the order dated 5/4/2003 it was specifically noted that the petitioner was continued in service and there was no cause of action in entertaining the appeal. Notwithstanding this finding that the impugned order of the School Tribunal is unsustainable, the petitioner from the admitted facts cannot claim reinstatement in service in the Primary School run by the respondent-Trust i.e. Dnyanganga Education Trust, Kandivali (East), Mumbai - 400 101. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before me the copies of appointment orders issued in her favour from time to time right from 1995-96 onwards and all these appointments are on purely temporary basis either for the academic year or for a period of 3-6 months. The approval order issued by the Education Inspector on 6/1/1997 also indicates that the petitioner’s appointment was approved for one academic year i.e. 1997-98 and on the condition that the Management would recruit the duly qualified i.e. SSC B.Ed teacher in the next academic year. The petitioner does not possess the qualifications of SSC D.Ed. and admittedly she has completed her Drawing :4: and Painting Certificate, ATD and HTTC Certificate. If regards be had to the qualifications laid down for primary teachers under the MEPS Rules, 1981, Schedule (B), the petitioner is qualified for being appointed as a special teacher (drawing teacher in a primary school) and by nominations. The appointment orders issued in her favour from time to time do not indicate that she was appointed as a special teacher and the record speaks for itself that she was appointed either against a vacancy reserved for scheduled caste candidate or in a vacancy which would not be filled in by a temporary qualified teacher. The petitioner was a tenure appointee from time to time and, therefore, she cannot claim reinstatement in service as a matter of right. 4. Hence, there is no case made out by the petitioner to challenge the alleged termination either of April 1998 or that of April 2003 and in any case even on consideration that she is from OBC category and a lady candidate her case cannot be considered for giving any direction on equitable reliefs for appointment as Assistant Teacher in a primary school. :5: 5. Hence, the petition is rejected summarily. 6. The Respondent No.3 is directed to keep the petitioner’s name on the waiting list for the appointment of a special teacher in any primary school in the Mumbai Region and in case the respondent nos.1 and 2 have such a vacancy, they shall give her preference in recruitment of special teacher. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)