1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 452/2010. Vishnu Nivruti Jawade -: versus :- Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and others Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 16, 2010. Heard Shri P.B. Patil, learned counsel for petitioner, Shri S.S. Adkar, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and learned A.G.P. for respondent no.3. School Tribunal, has dismissed appeal of petitioner after noticing that his appointment as Shikshan Sevak was as untrained candidate. Even today petitioner does not possess training qualification. Shri Patil, learned has pointed out that on 09.01.2009 petitioner was selected for that training, but just two days before receipt of that communication petitioner was terminated by the Management. Shri Patil, learned counsel relies upon the Shikshan Sevak Scheme, particularly clause 13[xi] to urge that a backward class candidate like petitioner, even if, untrained can be appointed and he has to give an undertaking that he would acquire necessary qualification within prescribed period. Shri Adkar, learned Counsel appearing for 2 respondent on the other hand states that the School Tribunal has found that an untrained candidate cannot be appointed. Learned A.G.P. supports the impugned order. The Scheme relied upon by Shri Patil, learned counsel for petitioner does not in any way amend the provisions of Rule 6 of the M.E.P.S. Rules, 1981. With the result, an untrained candidate like petitioner can be appointed only on year to year basis and he has to obtain training qualification, however, there is no protection to his services in any way. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the Writ Petition. Writ Petition is thus dismissed, with no order as to cost. JUDGE Rgd.