1 WP 5261.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.5261 OF 2010 Ku. Wahida Shermohammad Shaikh, Aged about 41 years, Occupation-Service, Resident of Hiwara, Post-Sorta, Taluka-Deoli, District-Wardha. .. Petitioner ..Versus.. 1) Triratna Bhahu Uddeshiya Shikshan Sanstha, through Secretaru Shri Arunkumar s/o Shankarrao Fulzele, Joshi Plot, Vallabh Nagar, Arvi Road, Pulgaon, District-Wardha. 2) Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Tahsil-Wardha, District-Wardha. .. Respondents ………. Mrs. S.P. Deshpande, Advocate for Petitioner, Mr. N.D. Khamborkar, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Ms. D.V. Sapkal, AGP for Respondent No.2-State. ………. CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J. DATED : 25.08.2026. 2026:BHC-NAG:11288 2 WP 5261.10 JUDGMENT 1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the judgment and order passed by the School Tribunal dated 20.08.2010 in Appeal (STN) No.76/2001, whereby the School Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner-employee. 2. From the judgment of the School Tribunal, it is seen that the learned School Tribunal has dismissed the appeal mainly on the ground that the petitioner was not having the training qualification as required for the post of Assistant Teacher at the time of appointment and, therefore, by holding that at the time of appointment, the petitioner was not possessing the requisite qualification, dismissed the appeal. 3. The petitioner, who approached before this Court, has came with a submission that she was initially appointed by the respondent no.1-management on 30.06.1992 as an Assistant Teacher for one Academic Session i.e. 01.07.1992 to 31.06.1993. Thereafter, she was again reappointed by further appointment order dated 03.07.1993 to 31.03.1995. As such, from the second appointment, which was issued for a probation 3 WP 5261.10 period of two years, after completing the probation period, she acquired the status of a confirmed employee in the school. According to the petitioner, since the month of December-1995, they were not allowed to work and not her salary was paid by the respondent-management. Same become a reason for the petitioner and other employees to approach before the Education Officer to redress their grievance. Before the Education Officer, the hearing was held and the respondent- management has agreed to continue their services in the school. After that, the Education Officer issued the communication to the respondent-management to continue the petitioner along with other employees in the school, but the same was not implemented. 4. It is further pointed out that the respondent- management against the communication of the Education Officer of directing to continue the services of the petitioner and other employees, approached before this court vide Writ Petition No.2620/2000 stating that the services of the petitioner has been already terminated with effect from 26.11.1995. Therefore, there was no reason for them to continue them in 4 WP 5261.10 the services. The respondent-management further pointed out that the termination order was duly communicated to the petitioner-employee, but same was refused to accept. So also in respect of other employees, the same stand was taken by the management before this court. In the light of the submission of the parties, this court by holding that the services of the petitioner being terminated with effect from 26.11.1995, the petitioner has been granted liberty to challenge the termination order before the School Tribunal. 5. In this background, the petitioner approached before the School Tribunal to challenge her termination. Before the School Tribunal, the petitioner has came with a submission that at the time of her appointment, she was possessing the qualification of B.Sc, B.Ed. The training qualification which she has acquired was from Mahila Gram Vidyapetha, Prayag, Allahabad. The same was strongly disputed by the respondent- management by stating that same is not equivalent of B.Ed. In this regard, the learned Tribunal has recorded the finding in the impugned judgment stating that the training qualification obtained by the petitioner from Mahila Gram Vidyapetha, 5 WP 5261.10 Prayag, Allahabad being not equivalent to B.Ed, she was not possessing the requisite qualification for the post and, therefore, appeal was dismissed. In this background, the petitioner now approached before this court to challenge the judgment of School Tribunal on various grounds. 6. The respondent-management has specifically pointed out that in the present case the termination order dated 26.11.1995 was issued to the petitioner in view of the communication from the Education Officer, whereby it was informed that the present petitioner is not having the requisite qualification and, therefore, appropriate action be taken against her. As such, in response of communication of the Education Officer, the management has terminated the services of the petitioner. 7. The petitioner’s stand is same before this court that at the time of appointment, the petitioner was not possessing the requisite qualification, therefore, her initial entry in the school it itself illegal and, therefore, on this count, the judgment delivered by the learned School Tribunal is just and proper in 6 WP 5261.10 the facts and circumstances of the case. In support of the submission, the respondent-management has relied upon the judgment of Division Bench of this court in the case of Priyadarshini Education Trust and others .vs. Ratis (Rafia) Bano d/o Abdul Rasheed and others, reported in 2007 (6) Mh.L.J. 667. 8. In the present matter, the petitioner has stated that she has obtained the qualification of B.Ed of Nagpur University in the year 1999. In this regard, the School Tribunal has recorded the finding that the said qualification of B.Ed, if accepted to have been obtained by the petitioner during the period when she was in employment, then her case itself falsify for the simple reason, because at one hand, the petitioner is stating that she was in employment and on the other hand, she is stating that training qualification of B.Ed has been obtained by her during the service period. It is also recorded that there is no permission granted by the management for obtaining the qualification. So also from the degree of B.Ed, which is placed on record, seems to have been obtained by attending the regular college in the Nagpur University. Hence, on this count, 7 WP 5261.10 the learned Tribunal has not accepted the qualification of B.Ed obtained during the course of employment. 9. The submission of the petitioner before this court that the qualification of B.Ed in the year 1998 has been obtained during the vacation period. However, the provisional certificate which is placed on record dated 02.09.1999 no where shows that it has been obtained from the vacation period, rather it is seen that it has been obtained in the Winter-1998. There is no specific mention that it has been obtained druing the vacation, so also there is no such provision that in a vacation period, such degree can be obtained from the University. Therefore, the findings recorded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be contrary to the facts available on record. 10. In the present matter, the respondent-management has relied upon the judgment of Division Bench of this court in the case of Priyadarshini Education Trust and others .vs. Ratis (Rafia) Bano d/o Abdul Rasheed and others (supra), wherein this court has considered what is mean by “duly appointed in the manner prescribed” as stated under Section 5 of the 8 WP 5261.10 Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1978. This court has specifically held in Para 12, particularly when drawing the conclusions on the basis of Apex Court and other judgments by holding that “duly appointed, in the manner prescribed” would be an appointment of a person who is eligible (qualified for the post) for appointment, who is selected by due process of selection i.e. by competition amongst all eligible and desirous candidates, and who is appointed on a permanent vacant post. In other words, inviting applications, as also holding of screening tests, enabling all eligible and desirous candidates to compete for selection and appointment, is a must. 11. In the present case, it is seen from the record that the petitioner failed to establish on record that her appointment was made in a manner prescribed as per Section 5 read with Rule 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1978 and Rules. It is no where pointed out that at the time of appointment of the petitioner there was an advertisement issued by the management and by following due process of selection i.e. by 9 WP 5261.10 competition amongst all eligible and desirous candidates, she has been appointed on the post, so also it is not clear from the record whether the post on which she was appointed was a permanent vacant post or not. Hence, the finding recorded by the School Tribunal to the effect that though she was not having training qualification, but she can be considered as an untrained teacher is contrary to the law laid down by this court in the matter. 12. In the facts and circumstances, it is clear that the appointment of the petitioner was not made by following due procedure of law, she was not holding the requisite qualification for the post and she has been terminated in the year 1995 on the ground that she is not having the requisite qualification, I find that the learned Tribunal has rightly decided the controversy involved in the present matter and there is no need of any interference of this court in the present petition. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. (Pravin S. Patil, J.) Gulande Signed by: A.S. GULANDE Designation: Senior Pvt. Secretary Date: 29/08/2026 10:26:43