Bombay High Court
Shri. Nanaji Wasudeorao ... vs Loksewa Adivasi Shikshan ... on 26 April, 2017
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
1
wp3290.09.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Writ Petition No.3290 of 2009
Shri Nanaji Wasudeorao Bhasarkar,
R/o At Post - Borgaon,
Tah.- Gondpoipari,
Dist. - Chandrapur. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Loksewa Adivasi Shikshan Prasarak
Mandal,
Umari (Potdar),
Tah. - Gondpipari, Dist. Chandrapur,
through its Secretary,
C/o Navjivan Madhyamik Vidyalaya,
Gojoli, Tah. Gondpipari,
Dist. Chandrapur.
2. The Headmaster,
Navjivan Madhyamik Vidyalaya,
Gojoli, Tah. Gondpipari,
Dist. Chandrapur.
3. The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur. ... Respondents
Shri P.N. Shende, Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri R.J. Kankale, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Shri K.L. Dharmadhikari, Assistant Government Pleader for
Respondent No.3.
::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2017 00:35:53 :::
2
wp3290.09.odt
Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J.
th
Dated : 26 April, 2017
Oral Judgment :
1. The controversy involved in the present petition is
covered by the decision of this Court, delivered on 12-4-2017 in
Writ Petition No.3292 of 2009 [Sahebdas Sakharam Borkar v.
Maharashtra Rural Education Society, Lakhandur, through its
Secretary, R/o Lakhandur, Dist. Bhandara]. The petitioner was
appointed as untrained teacher and was continued in service. He
claimed the benefit of the Government Resolution
dated 10-2-1994, which extended the period of acquiring the
training qualification for in-service candidates up to 1-6-1995.
The petitioner acquired the training qualification in 2001, though
he was initially appointed on 26-6-1996.
2. Paras 5 and 6 of the aforesaid decision, are reproduced
below :
"5. Perusal of Rule 6 of the MEPS Rules shows that the
wp3290.09.odt
Education Officer may permit the Management to appoint
untrained graduate teachers in Secondary Schools in
exceptional circumstances, such as non-availability of
trained graduates, and such appointment has to be on
year to year basis, on the clear understanding that such
appointee will have to obtain training qualification at
their own cost and further subject to the condition that
their services shall be liable to termination as soon as a
trained graduate teachers becomes available."
"6. What is required to be emphasized in the present
case is that the petitioner was required to come before the
Court with a specific case - (i) that his appointment as
untrained graduate teacher was because of non-
availability of trained graduates for appointment, (ii) that
the permission of the Education Officer was obtained for
making such appointment by the Management, and (iii)
that there was a clear understanding that the appointee
shall have to obtain training qualification at his own cost
within a stipulated period, else his services were liable to
be terminated. The petitioner has neither come to the
Tribunal with such a case, nor the Tribunal has adverted
to any such aspects of the matter. There is no case made
out by the petitioner for grant of reliefs on the basis of
Rule 6 of the MPES Rules read with the Government
wp3290.09.odt
Resolution dated 10-2-1994."
3. There is no averment in the memo of appeal that the
appointment of the petitioner as untrained teacher was because
of non-availability of trained graduate teacher, and that the
permission of the Education Officer was obtained for making
such appointment by the Management. In view of this, the
matter is fully covered by the aforesaid decision of this Court.
The School Tribunal has dismissed the appeal. No fault can be
found with it. The petition is dismissed.
4. Rule stands discharged. No order as to costs.
JUDGE.
Lanjewar.
