The main legal point established in the judgment is that the qualifications required for appointment as a trained Teacher in Secondary School do not necessarily mandate a specific graduation subject, and the higher qualification of post-graduation in the relevant subject should be considered.

JUDGMENT

N J Jamadar, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of the Counsels for the parties, heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. The challenge in this petition is to the judgment and order dated 29th of April 2015 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Solapur, in Appeal No. 80 of 2014, whereby the appeal, preferred by the appellant-petitioner against termination of his service by respondent No.4-management, came to be dismissed.

3. The background facts, leading to this petition, can be stated, in brief, as under:

(i) The respondent No.4 runs a school, namely, Vasant Vidyalaya, at Pimpalgaon (Ko) Taluka Washi Dist. Osmanabad. Pursuant to approval granted by the respondent No.3 - the Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad, the respondent No.4 had published an advertisement inviting applications for the post of Shikshan Sevaks, on 24th of December 2011. The petitioner, being duly qualified, had applied for the post of Shikshan Sevak from the Open Category. After appraisal of the qualification and credentials as well as performance in the interview, the petitioner came to be appointed as a Shikshan Sevak, by order dated 30th of December 2011. On the very day, the petitioner joined the said post.

(ii) The respondent No.4 sent the proposal of the petitioner and another candidate Mr. Prashant Wanole, who was selected in the same process for the post reserved for Scheduled Tribes, for approval to respondent No.3. Approval to the appointment of Mr. Prashant Wanole was granted on 16th of October 2012. However, the Education Officer-respondent No.3 declined to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner on the premise that the Director of Education had issued a directive not to grant approval to the appointment of new Teacher and non-teaching staff. Since the petitioner was appointed against a clear vacancy, after following regular selection process, the refusal to grant approval was wholly unjustified. Hence the petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 3625 of 2013.

(iii) While this Court was seized of the said writ petition, the respondent No.3 rejected the proposal for approval of the petitioner on the premise that the petitioner did not possess the necessary qualification as he had not completed graduation with Marathi; to teach which the petitioner was appointed as a Shikshan Sevak. Thus, the petitioner withdrew Writ petition No. 3625 of 2013 with liberty to file independent proceeding consequent to rejection of proposal for approval.

(iv) The second petition, being Writ Petition No. 6515 of 2013, preferred by the petitioner, challenging the said order of rejection of approval passed by respondent No.3 was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 18th of March 2014. This Court noted that the petitioner has completed B.Sc. and, thereafter, acquired M.A. in Marathi, in addition to B.Ed. Since the petitioner possessed post graduate degree in Marathi, this Court observed that, prima-facie, the petitioner possessed the requisite qualification for appointment as Teacher to teach Marathi. However, since during the pendency of the said petition, the respondent No.4- management had, in turn, terminated the petitioner by order dated 12th of October 2013, it was held that it would be appropriate for the petitioner to challenge the order of termination passed by respondent No.4 before the School Tribunal.

(v) Armed with the liberty as aforesaid, the petitioner filed appeal before the School Tribunal assailing the legality, propriety and correctness of the termination order dated 12th of October 2013. The appeal was resisted by respondent No.5-Head master of the School by filing an affidavit-in-reply. It was contended that the petitioner had completed his graduation in Science. He did not possess the essential qualification of being a trained graduate in Marathi. However, the petitioner, being the son of the then S