1. This petition challenges the judgment and order dated 29.07.2005 delivered by the School Tribunal, Amravati, dismissing the Appeal No. 89 of 1999 filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, challenging his termination from service by an order dated 13.08.1999. The tribunal has held that the petitioner was not qualified for being appointed as an Assistant Teacher in terms of the qualification prescribed in the advertisement, his appointment was purely on temporary basis against the post reserved for Scheduled Tribe and Nomadic Tribe candidate made for the reason of non-availability of such candidate and hence, his initial appointment cannot be treated as on probation so as to confer upon him deemed confirmation in service.
2. Shri Gode, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it was the specific stand of the management that the appointment of the petitioner as an Assistant Teacher was against the post reserved for Scheduled Tribe and Nomadic Tribe candidate and since the candidate belonging to such category was not available, the appointment of the petitioner from Other Backward Class category should have been treated as on probation for a period of two years. He has relied upon the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in case of Bhartiya Buddha Dhamma Dnyan Vidyalaya and another vrs. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nagpur and others, reported in 2010 (3) Mh.L.J. 177. He submits that the fact of non-availability of the suitable qualified candidate from Scheduled Tribe and Nomadic Tribe category has been admitted and the appointment of the petitioner belonging to the Other Backward Class Category on temporary year to year basis has also not been disputed. He submits that in terms of the decision of this Court, cited supra, the initial appointment of the petitioner on 25.11.1997 should be treated as a probation and the termination made on 13.08.1999 was not on the ground of unsatisfactory service of the petitioner.
3. No doubt that the appeal filed by the petitioner was defended by the respondents only on the ground that the post was reserved for Scheduled Tribe and Nomadic Tribe category and since the qualified candidate from the said category was not available, the petitioner was appointed purely on the temporary basis. However, unless the petitioner satisfies this Court or the tribunal on the basis of his qualification, it cannot be said that the initial appointment of the petitioner on 25.11.1997 should be treated as on probation, which can only be terminated on the basis of unsatisfactory service record. The initial advertisement issued in the year 1997-98 in response to which the petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Teacher indicated the qualification for the post as H.S.C/S.S.C. D.Ed. Similar was the qualification prescribed in the second advertisement dated 16.06.1998. The Education Officer granted his approval on year to year basis and in response to the petition, the stand of the Education Officer is that the petitioner was not possessing the qualification of S.S.C. D.Ed and his appointment was against the post reserved for Scheduled Tribe and Nomadic Tribe category.
4. In the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Darphale Yogita Jagannath and others vrs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2012 (2) Mh.L.J. 823, cited by Shri Gode, the learned counsel for the petitioner, it has been held in paragraph No. 20 that, "by no stretch of imagination, a candidate with qualification of A.T.D will be able to teach any other subject, except Arts subject and a teacher with A.T.D qualification cannot be equated with the teachers with D.Ed/D.T.Ed. It further holds that if a teacher with qualification of D.Ed/D.T.Ed is available, it may not be necessary to appoint separate Arts Teacher with qualification of A.T.D in a primary school run by the local authority.
5. Undisputedly, the petitioner possesses the qualification of H.S.C and A.T.D. It is thus clear and undisputed position that the petitioner was not possessing the training qualification for being appointed as an Assistant Teacher. It is also not the case of the present petitioner that he was appointed to teach the Arts subject. In the absence of the training qualification being possessed by the petitioner, his appointment cannot be treated as on probation. The appointment as has been rightly held by the tribunal was purely on temporary basis which did not confer any right upon the petitioner for continuation on the post. Hence, no interference is called for in the decision of the tribunal In the result, the writ petition is dismissed.