(1) WP-1199.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1199 OF 2011 Bhagwat S/o Dhuraji Avhad, Age : 41 years, Occu.: Service, R/o Jambhali, Post Mohoj-Devadhe, Tq. Pathardi, Dist.: Ahmednagar PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2. The Deputy Director of Education, Pune Division, Pune 3. The Education Officer (Sec.) Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar 4. Hutatma Babu Genu Samajwadi Vidyapeeth, Mumbai, Branch Tisgaon, Tq. Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar, Through its Secretary 5. The Headmaster, Kanifnath Vidyalaya at Post Madhi-Nivdunge, Tq. Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. C.K. Shinde, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State. Mr. S.V. Jaigude, Advocate for the respondent no.4 Mr. R.S. Kasar, Advocate for the respondent no.5 ..... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 20TH SEPTEMBER, 2011 (2) WP-1199.2011 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER - B.R. GAVAI, J.): 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner by way of present Petition, is seeking a direction to the respondents to treat the petitioner as a trained Teacher and release the salary in the pay-scale prescribed for trained Teachers. 3. The petitioner was possessing B.A. B.Ed. qualification, was appointed by respondent no.4 in 1996-1997 as an Assistant Teacher and approval was also granted by the Education Officer on 7.10.1997. Subsequently, the petitioner was continued on year to year basis and approvals were granted to the appointment. However, on 19.7.1999, the petitioner was again appointed on probation by the management but since the appointment was on probation, the Education Officer did not grant approval, as a result of which the management terminated the services of the petitioner. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the learned School Tribunal. (3) WP-1199.2011 The learned School Tribunal on 30.9.2002 allowed the Appeal and directed reinstatement with continuity in service and further directed the management to continue the services of the petitioner as an Assistant Teacher in the pay scale of untrained Teacher, until the petitioner acquires D.Ed. qualification through postal D.Ed. course. According to the direction of the learned Tribunal, the petitioner applied to the respondent no.2 for admission to the postal D.Ed. course, but the same was denied on the ground that the petitioner already possess B.Ed. qualification. 4. In this background, the petitioner has approached this Court, seeking a direction to the respondents to make applicable the scale of trained teacher. 5. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Jayashree Sunil Chavan Vs. The State of Maharashtra 2003(2) ALL MR 951 has held that such of the teachers who are teaching in the primary schools, the qualification of D.Ed. is mandatory. However, the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra and (4) WP-1199.2011 ors. Vs. Tukaram Tryambak Chaudhari and ors. 2007 (2) ALL MR 933 (S.C.) held that the Teachers possessing B.A. B.Ed. qualification are also duly qualified to teach as a Primary Teacher. In that view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to the relief claimed, since the petitioner is qualified as B.A. B.Ed. 6. Rule is therefore made absolute, by directing the respondents to treat the petitioner as a trained Primary Teacher and accordingly pay him the salary in that scale. If there are any arrears payable to the petitioner on account of the difference of salary between the scale of trained Primary Teacher and untrained Primary Teacher, the same shall be paid within a period of six (6) months from today. Sd/- Sd/- [M. T. JOSHI, J.] [B. R. GAVAI, J.] arp/