FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGBAD. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Office notes, office Memoranda of coram, appearance, court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ WRIT PETITION NO.3078/2009 1. Heard learned counsel for respective parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 3. The petitioners, takes an exception to the Judgment an order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Latur Region, Latur passed in appeal No.48/2008 on March 20, 2009. 4. This petition has been filed by the petitioner No.1, Secretary of Seva Bharati Barshi Road Latur ('Management' for short) and aggrieved teacher, who was appointed as Head Master by the petitioner No.1. Respondent No.1 is the contesting respondent, who was appellant before learned School Tribunal, Latur Region, Latur. Date of appointment of the present petitioner No.2 and respondent No.1 is not in dispute. Fact that both of them have rendered service as trained teacher for more than five years is also not in dispute. Counsel for the petitioners fairly concedes that respondent No.1, acquired status as trained teacher on 10.02.1999. As against this, present petitioner No.2 acquired the status of trained teacher on 31.12.2002 i.e. later in point of time. Learned Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal referred the judgment full Bench of this Court in the matter of Shri Vaijanath s/o Tatyarao Shinde Vs. The Secretary, Marathwada Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Aurangabad and others reported in 2006 (6) ALL MR 823 (Full Bench) and passed the order impugned, in favour of the respondent No.1. Learned Tribunal has also considered Rule 3 (1) of the Rules of 1981. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that present training, qualification or status as trained teacher is not material. Both of them i.e petitioner No.2 and respondent No.1 were appointed on the same date. Petitioner No.2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGBAD. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Office notes, office Memoranda of coram, appearance, court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ and Respondent No.1 in this writ petition, after assessing the status of trained teacher, granted approval to the present petitioner No.2 and respondent No.1. This order should not have been turned down by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Latur. 5. Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Rudrawar, supports the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Latur while addressing the court on behalf of respondent No.1. I have also heard learned counsel Mr. Sonwane, who appears for respondent No.2. 6. In my view, order impugned is reasoned, legal and proper. No interference is required. 7. Writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Rule discharged. ( S. B. DESHMUKH, J. ) * * * Dt :- 22.02.2010 aaa/3078.09