ORAL JUDGEMENT 1. This petition impugns the Judgement and order dated 23-10-1997 rendered by the School Tribunal at Kolhapur thereby allowing Appeal No.115 of 1995 filed by the present Respondent No.1 teacher. 2. The Petitioners were directed to reinstate the appellant in the original post of Assistant Teacher and to pay him full backwages from the date of termination till reinstatement. The order of termination dated 24-4-1999 was quashed and set aside. 3. The Respondent No.4 be deleted forthwith. While admitting this petition vide order dated 29-4-1998, it is stated by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, that Respondent Teacher was already reinstated as per the order dated 22-4-1998 and the said reinstatement was subject to the final order in this petition. The order regarding payment of backwages was stayed. 4. Mr.Dighe, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent Teacher stated that he has no instructions whereas Mr.Gorwadkar, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner stated that on receiving the appointment order dated 22-4-1998, the Respondent Teacher had joined service but after the order dated 29-4-1998 was passed, he never reported for duty. Thus, during the last about more than 9 years he has not turned up at any time. As per Mr. Gorwadkar, the Respondent Teacher had abandoned his service. The Respondent at the relevant time possessed the qualifications of B.A. B.P.Ed. and for the first time he was appointed by the order dated 31-10-1990 w.e.f. 1-11-1990 but upto the end of the academic year 1990-91. In the next academic year he was issued fresh appointment order on 3-7-1991 in response to his application dated 18-4-1991 and the appointment was on purely temporary basis for the said academic year. On 3-6-1992 the Petitioners released an advertisement to fill in the posts of Assistant Teachers in different schools run by the Petitioner No.1 Society and in the said advertisement there was no post of Assistant Teacher (Physical Education) shown to be filled in though in the earlier academic years such posts were shown to be filled in by the teachers who possessed the qualifications of B.P.Ed. degree. The Respondent was issued an appointment order on temporary basis in the academic year 1992-93 as an Assistant Teacher. It appears in the next academic year 1993-94 he was issued another fresh appointment order. Similarly, on 10-6-1990 he was issued yet another appointment order for the period from 21-6-1994 to 30-4-1995. degree. The Respondent was issued an appointment order on temporary basis in the academic year 1992-93 as an Assistant Teacher. It appears in the next academic year 1993-94 he was issued another fresh appointment order. Similarly, on 10-6-1990 he was issued yet another appointment order for the period from 21-6-1994 to 30-4-1995. In all these appointment orders he was informed that he was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the D.Ed. college at Sawarda. 5. The Dy. Director of Education by his order dated 3-3-1994 had refused to grant approval to the appointment of the Respondent Teacher for the academic year 1993-94 as there was backlog of reserved category candidates. It is obvious that the Respondent did not possess the qualifications for being appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the D.Ed. college and against the four sanctioned posts for the academic year 1993-94, four appointments were approved namely Shri Khanwilkar Shantaram Parshuram- Principal, Shri Phanse Vinod Moreshwar- Lecturer, Smt. Deshpande Asha Yashwant- Lecturer and Vanarkar Dilip Dwarkanath- Lecturer. All these appointees possessed the post graduation degree in addition to the degree of B.Ed./M.Ed. 6. As per Rule-6 read with Schedule B of the MEPS Rules the teachers appointed in different schools must possess the qualifications prescribed therein. Clause-III in Schedule B to the MEPS Rules, 1981 prescribes the qualifications for teachers in junior college. A master’s degree of a statutory University atleast in second class in the respective subject plus B.Ed. or D.Ed. is the qualification prescribed. The Respondent Teacher did not possess these qualifications and as noted earlier his appointment was not approved. The said appointment was made in the D.Ed. scale as he did not possess the requisite qualifications. Under these circumstances the School Tribunal fell in errors in holding that Respondent No.1 had attained the status of a deemed permanent teacher and, therefore, the said finding is unsustainable as it is contrary to the MEPS Rules, 1981. 7. Hence, this petition succeeds and the same is hereby allowed. The impugned judgement and order dated 23-10-1997 is quashed and set aside and consequently Appeal No. 115/1995 stands dismissed. 8. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs.