Dilip Namdeo Wasnik v. Panchsheel Shikshan Sanstha, Through Its Joint Secretary, Ghanod (Amgaon Bujruk) And 2 Otehrs

240118mca61.18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (REVIEW) NO. 61 OF 2018 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 146 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3835 OF 1999 (Shri Dilip s/o Namdeo Wasnik vs. Panchsheel Shikshan Sanstha, Ghanod (Amgaon Bujruk), Tahsil - Sakoli, District - Bhandara thr. Joint Secretary & Ors.) _____________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders.

and Registrar's Orders.

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.

JANUARY 24, 2018.

Heard Shri Vishal Anand, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2.

This Court has perused the provisions of Rule 6 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, and found that untrained person like the petitioner could have continued only year to year basis.

3.

The observations of this Court in paras 8, 9 & 10 of its judgment are not shown contrary to legal provision or any precedent. The support is being taken from a Government Resolution dated 10.02.1994 which extends time limit for obtaining D.Ed. or B.Ed. training qualification. This Government Resolution is applicable to those who have been appointed in Schools prior to 1974. Rule 6 also provides a date and stipulates that such untrained persons appointed before commencement of the Maharashtra

240118mca61.18 Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, are eligible to extended time.

4.

After considering these provisions, in Letters Patent Appeal, this Court has taken a particular view. No case is, therefore, made out. Hence, present Misc. Civil Application is rejected. There shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.