The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of qualifications for appointment as a trained teacher and the influence of government resolutions on the eligibility of teachers.

By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has impugned the order and judgment dated 17th October, 2011 passed by the school tribunal thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner impugning the order of termination dated 25th June, 2008 terminating his services passed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under :-

2. The respondent no.1 had established an aided school by name Shri Hudebaba High School, Kunikonur, Tal. Jat, Dist. Sangli. The petitioner belongs to the S.C. category. On or about 4th January, 2006 the petitioner was appointed on probation for a period of two years on clear permanent vacancy. On the date of the appointment of the petitioner, the petitioner had already completed the required qualification of B.A.B.Ed., B.P.Ed. Shiksha Visharad. When the respondent no.1 had started the said school in the year 1990, initially there was a division of 8th standard. During the next two years 9th and 10th standards were set up. In the academic year 1999-2000 the respondent no.1 management opened the division of 5th standard. In the year 2002, the said school became full fledged school having 5th to 10th standard. Since 2000, grant-in-aid has been granted to the 8th to 10th standard. Thereafter in respect of 5th to 7th standard the school started receiving partial grant-in-aid. There is no dispute that since year 2008, the school has been getting 100% grant-in-aid.

3. There were three posts in D.Ed. category and 1 post in B.Ed. category in the school run by the respondent no.1. After appointing the petitioner in the said post, the respondent no.1 forwarded the proposal of the petitioner to the Education Department for approval. The Education Officer passed an order refusing to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was not having qualification of D.Ed and was accordingly an untrained teacher. Based on the refusal of the approval of the Education Officer, the respondent nos.1 and 2 passed an order of termination of the services of the petitioner by letter dated 25th June, 2008. This order of termination by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 came to be challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal (55 of 2008) before the School Tribunal, Kolhapur. The education officer filed an affidavit before the school tribunal contending that since the petitioner herein belonged to the reserved category having qualification of B.A.,B.Ed., B.P.Ed. and was appointed on D.Ed. vacancy, in lieu of the judgment delivered by this court in Writ Petition No. 4159 of 1998 on 5th May, 2000, the candidate holding B.Ed. degree could not be treated as the qualified teacher for a primary school.

4. Insofar as respondent nos. 1 and 2 management is concerned, it was contended by them that the respondent no.1 school had appointed the petitioner on probation for the standard 5th to 7th which were unaided divisions at the relevant time. The management however admitted that the work and behaviour of the petitioner was satisfactory. In the letter of termination issued by the respondent nos. 1 and 2, it was however mentioned that the services of the petitioner was terminated in view of the education officer refusing to grant an approval to the appointment of the petitioner. The presiding officer of the school tribunal passed an order dated 17th October, 2011 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner.

5. Mr.Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the advertisement issued by the respondent no.1 management for the said post on which the petitioner was appointed, the letter of appointment issued by the respondent no.1 appointing the petitioner as assistant teacher for a period of two years probation, the order passed by the education officer, letter of termination issued by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and the affidavits filed by the management as well as t