1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.922/2011 RUPDAO CHINTAMAN GHUGUSKAR ..VS.. NATIONAL EDUCATION SOCIETY & ORS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri P.N. Shende, advocate for petitioner . CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. D A T E : MARCH 21, 2011. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Tribunal on 16.9.2010, partly rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner and refusing to grant reinstatement and back wages to the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was working as an Assistant Teacher with the respondent no.1 and 2 on year to year basis as the petitioner had not acquired B.Ed. Qualification . The respondent no.1 and 2 had deputed the petitioner for B.Ed. Training during the period from 1999- 2001, during vacation by giving an undertaking that after completion of B.Ed. in the year 2001, his services would be continued. However, since the petitioner’s services were orally terminated, the appeal was filed by the petitioner. The Tribunal on an appreciation of the material on record, rightly quashed and set aside the order terminating the services of the petitioner and directed the respondent no.1 and 2 to pay four months wages to the petitioner. The Tribunal held that the petitioner could not have acquired deemed confirmation as the petitioner was an untrained 2 graduate even on the date of his termination. The Tribunal observed that the services of the petitioner were not illegally terminated as the petitioner had failed to acquire the training qualification within the period specified in the undertaking. The petitioner completed the B.Ed. course in May 2003, but two years earlier, the services of the petitioner were terminated. Since the petitioner did not possess the B.Ed. qualification till the date of his termination or by the end of the academic session 2000-2001, the Tribunal rightly held that the petitioner did not have any right to be reinstated in service with full back wages. The tribunal rightly granted four months salary to the petitioner as his services were wrongly terminated in the month of January, though they ought to have been terminated at the end of academic session 2000-2001. There is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal on 16.9.2010. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP