USHA SHAMRAO KHUBIKARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

                                                                       4.as.wp.10849.2009 @1.doc




                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
       Digitally
       signed by
       VINA
VINA   ARVIND
ARVIND KHADPE
                                      WRIT PETITION NO.10849 OF 2009
KHADPE Date:
       2026.10.07
       14:57:21
       +0530
                    Usha Shamrao Khubikar                             … Petitioner
                          Versus
                    The State of Maharashtra and ors.                 … Respondents
                                                    ***
                    Mr. Nitin P. Deshpande (through VC) for the Petitioner.
                    Dr. Dhruti Kapadia, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 / State.
                    None for Respondent Nos.3 and 4.
                                                    ***
                                                       CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
                                                          DATE     : 6th OCTOBER, 2026
                    P.C. :

                    1.       The Petitioner is challenging the Judgment and Order dated
                    31.07.2009 passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Pune
                    Region, Pune (‘the Tribunal’, for short) in Appeal No.7 of 2009. By
                    the said impugned order, the Appeal filed by the Petitioner is
                    dismissed. The Petitioner had filed an appeal under Section 9 of the
                    Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service)
                    Regulation Act, 1977 and the Rules of 1981 made thereunder (‘the
                    said Act’ and ‘the said Rules’ for short), challenging her ‘otherwise
                    termination’ of services on 16.6.2008 from the post of part-time
                    teacher in the Higher Secondary School.

                    2.       The Petitioner filed the said appeal contending inter alia that
                    the Management had initially appointed the Petitioner as a part-time
                    teacher in the Junior College by an appointment order dated
                    21.08.1992 for one year and had issued appointment orders from
                    year to year till academic year 2005-2006. She contended that

                    Vina Khadpe                            1
                                                   4.as.wp.10849.2009 @1.doc




thereafter an appointment order was issued on 21.09.2005
appointing her on a full-time basis and on probation for two years,
assigning work of teaching in two Junior Colleges, which were in fact
two part-time posts. She contended that the concerned Educational
Authority did not approve the said full-time appointment for which
Writ Petition No.8783 of 2007 was filed and its decision was pending
at the relevant time. In view of refusal of approval, the Management
brought the Petitioner back to her former post of part-time teacher by
issuing a fresh appointment order for the academic year 2006-2007
and 2007-2008. However, it was not approved, citing the pendency
of the Writ Petition. According to the Petitioner, she was qualified for
the said post, and her appointment was made after issuing
advertisement. However, after the academic year started in June
2008, she was not allowed to sign the muster roll which amounted to
otherwise termination.

3.     The Respondent / Management filed a Reply contending, inter
alia that the Petitioner was not appointed on probation. It is
contended that the appointment was on a part-time basis for a
particular academic year and no grievance was raised in that respect.
It is contended that though the Petitioner was given an appointment
on full-time basis by clubbing the workload of two part-time teachers
in two different colleges, the same was not approved. It is contended
that with a view to protect the Petitioner’s services, she was brought
back to the previous post as a part-time teacher. It is contended that,
at the end of every academic year she was issued the relevant memo,
which she had accepted and never raised any grievance; hence, she


Vina Khadpe                           2
                                                  4.as.wp.10849.2009 @1.doc




was estopped from raising a grievance now. It is further contended
that the Petitioner did not possess the necessary qualification of B.Ed
degree; however, the Management tried its best to accommodate her
in part-time post; however, her service under the last appointment
came to an end on 30.4.2008 and therefore, there was no otherwise
termination as alleged.

4.     The Tribunal, after considering the material on record,
dismissed the Appeal under the impugned order.

5.     In these circumstances, the Petitioner filed this Writ Petition,
which was admitted on 05.01.2010. No interim relief was granted.

6.     Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Deshpande submitted
that the Tribunal has not considered the material on record in its
proper perspective and it ought to have held that the situation
amounted to otherwise termination. He submitted that the appeal
ought to have been allowed.

7.     None appeared for the Respondent/Management, though duly
served and despite advocate being engaged. Learned APP has
supported the impugned order.

8.     I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the
Petitioner. I have perused the impugned order.

9.     On considering the educational qualification of the Petitioner
in detail and comparing it against the qualification required for the
post involved, the Tribunal has held that the requisite educational


Vina Khadpe                           3
                                                   4.as.wp.10849.2009 @1.doc




qualification for the concerned post was ‘M.A. in Economics with
B.Ed’. The Tribunal has then considered the admitted position about
the Petitioner’s educational qualification which was ‘M.A. in
Economics with B.P.Ed’. The Tribunal has considered that, at the time
of Petitioner’s initial appointment in August 1992, though she
possessed one of the requisite qualifications (M.A. in Economics), she
lacked the other qualification required (B.Ed.) which she acquired in
April, 2008.

10.    The Tribunal has considered the argument about alleged
equivalence of qualification of B.P.Ed and B.Ed and considering the
case law, as discussed in paragraph nos. 14 & 15 of the impugned
order, the Tribunal has concluded that since the B.P.Ed qualification of
the Petitioner did not have Economics as a subject, her qualification
cannot be taken as equivalent to B.Ed.

11.    The Tribunal has also considered Government Resolutions
dated 01.06.2000 and 22.06.1984 regarding equivalence. The
Tribunal has held that the same applies to primary shool teachers
(and not Junior college) and for the purpose of scale, promotion etc.
and would not help the case of the Petitioner.

12.    The Tribunal has rightly considered that possessing the
requisite qualification for any post is a sine qua non and considering
that the Petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification, the
appointment could not be held as valid in the eyes of law.

13.    The Tribunal has further considered that the Respondent/
Management has produced on record, a memo showing that the

Vina Khadpe                           4
                                                 4.as.wp.10849.2009 @1.doc




Petitioner was duly relieved from the service, which bears the
Petitioner’s signature. The Tribunal has also held on facts, that from
the record, it is seen that the Respondent/Management has tried its
level best to accommodate the Petitioner on the part-time post.

14.    In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and for the reasons
indicated above, the view taken by the Tribunal is a probable view.
No perversity is found in the impugned order. Therefore, there is no
reason to interfere.

15.    Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. No
order as to costs.

16.    All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed
QR verifiable copy of this order.

                                             (M.M. SATHAYE, J.)




Vina Khadpe                          5