WP/7844/2009 : 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7844 OF 2009 Gumansing D. Patil ... Petitioner V/s. Sonpant Dandekar S. Mandali & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.N.V. Bandiwadekar for Petitioner Ms.M.S. Parasnis for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 Mr.S.D. Rayrikar, AGP, for Resp. Nos.3 & 4 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: SEPTEMBER 3, 2010 P.C.: 1. The School Tribunal has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner on 18.2.2009. The petitioner contended that he had been illegally terminated from service by the respondent management on the ground that he did not possess the requisite qualifications. Admittedly, the qualifications of the Petitioner are M.Com, B.Ed.(Physical). The management had not confirmed him in service because the approval was granted subject to the petitioner acquiring the training in B.Ed. (General) as B.Ed. (Physical) would not suffice for teaching students in the Commerce stream. 2. In my opinion, when admittedly the petitioner did not possess requisite qualifications, the question of continuing him in service would not arise and, WP/7844/2009 : 2 : therefore, the Tribunal has committed no error in dismissing the appeal. 3. Mr.Bandiwadekar, appearing for the petitioner, submits that in view of the judgment of the Division bench of this Court in the case of Harlal Harchand Pardeshi vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2001 (2) Bom.C.R. 547, while considering whether a person is fit to teach a particular stream, what is necessary to be ascertained are the qualifications acquired by the person at the time he acquired is B.Com degree. Similarly, what is material in the present case is to ascertain whether the petitioner was fit to teach the students in the Commerce stream with his M.Com degree rather than considering whether he had a B.Ed (physical) or B.Ed. (general). 4. In my opinion, the Division Bench judgment cannot be read to mean that the basic degree of B.Ed. (general) is not necessary when the qualifications prescribed under the MEPS Act and the schedule thereto require a person who is teaching students in the commerce stream to be qualified with a M.Com. degree alongwith a B.Ed. (general) degree. The degree of B.Ed. (physical) would not suffice. 5. In a similar situation, a learned Single Judge of this of Court in Shivshakti Shikshan Sanstha & anr. vs. Nilkanth s/o. Kawaduji Shivankar & Anr., 2005 (3) Mh.L.J. 696 held that when the rules require an assistant teacher to possess a qualification of graduation with B.Ed as training qualifications, the B.Ed. qualification cannot be equated with a B.P.Ed. qualification. 6. In my opinion, when the schedule to the MEPS Act prescribes the qualifications which are necessary for teaching, the teacher must achieve those WP/7844/2009 : 3 : requisite qualifications if he desires to impart education. Merely because the teacher has taught in the school/college for 22 years would not absolve him from obtaining the requisite qualifications. In fact, in the present case, the management of the school has called upon the teacher to obtain the qualifications for a long period of time by issuing letters to him. The petitioner had sought permission from the respondent to obtain the qualifications from the Indira Gandhi Open University. This permission was also granted by the management despite which the petitioner did not avail of the opportunity. 7. Mr.Bandiwadekar, clutching at the proverbial last straw, has argued that no enquiry was held prior to terminating the services of the petitioner who was a permanent teacher. 8. The documents on record indicate that he could not have been a permanent teacher since he did not possess the requisite qualifications. In such a situation when admittedly, the qualifications were not attained by the petitioner there was no need to hold an enquiry. 9. In these circumstances, the Petition is rejected.