JUDGMENT:- Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and is heard by consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2. The respondent no.1, who had supported the claim of the petitioner before the Appellate Authority, has not appeared before this Court. The respondent no.2, who claims to be the President of the respondent no. 1 and who has issued the impugned order of termination, is contesting this petition. 3. To state, in brief, the respondent no. 1 is running a Residential School for handicapped by name "Shri. Devidas Kale Apang Vidyalaya [Residential]", situated at Kondeshwar Road, Badnera, Taluka & Distt.Amravati. 4. According to the petitioner, after following the due procedure, he was selected for the post of Special Teacher, and by the Order dated 3rd June. 1996 issued by the respondent no. I under the signature of the Secretary of the School Committee and the Managing Committee, he was appointed as a Special Teacher and as In-charge Headmaster on permanent basis for orthopaedically handicapped students. Since then, the petitioner was working as such. 5. Because of some disputes within the management, the respondent no.2. who claims to be the President of the Respondent No.1-Society, issued an order dated 1st July. 2006/12th July. 2006 and terminated the services of the petitioner from the date of dispatch of that order. As the order of termination was dispatched on 12th July. 2006, the termination of services of the petitioner took place from that date. In that termination order, the respondent no.2 had alleged that the petitioner was continuously absent from duty since 17th June, 2006 in spite of the letters dated 30th June. 2006 and 7th July, 2006 written to him. The respondent no.2 also alleged that during the year 1998-99, the petitioner had issued a Progress Card to one Deepak Pandurang Pandav, a student of IXth Standard showing him to have passed that examination, even though the said student was not on the roll of the school. The respondent no.2 alleged that in spite of the Show-cause-Notice given to the petitioner, he had not given a reply to the same. The respondent no.2 also alleged that since 17th May, 2006, the petitioner had not signed the muster roll, which indicated that he was no more in need of the job as a Teacher and the post of Headmaster. The respondent no.2 also alleged that since 17th May, 2006, the petitioner had not signed the muster roll, which indicated that he was no more in need of the job as a Teacher and the post of Headmaster. By the impugned order, the respondent no.2 also directed the petitioner to hand over charge of the post of Headmaster of the school to the respondent no.2 himself. 6. Being aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the said termination order before the Divisional Social Welfare Officer, Amravati the respondent no.4 herein - the Appellate Authority. According to the petitioner, the termination order was malafide, issued without following the due procedure of law and without holding any enquiry against him and. Therefore, the same is illegal and liable to be quashed. 7. The present respondent no.2. who was respondent no. 1 before the Appellate Authority, alone contested the appeal. According to him, the appointment order dated 3rd June. 1996, which was allegedly issued by the Secretary of the Society. itself was false and the appointment of petitioner was made without obtaining necessary permission or approval from the Social Welfare Officer. The respondent no.2 stated that there was no material to show that the appointment of the petitioner was made after following due procedure required for selection and recruitment. The respondent no.2 also contended that though the petitioner is holding the qualification of B.Com., B.Ed., he was not qualified for being appointed as a Teacher for the Primary School in the absence of qualification of D.Ed., and. therefore he cannot claim any right to continue in that post. 8. After hearing the parties, the Divisional Social Welfare Officer dismissed the appeal, holding that under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act. 1977, and under the Special Code for the Schools for Handicapped, for a teacher imparting instructions to students of 1st to IVth Standards, necessary qualification is SSC., D.Ed., and as the petitioner does not hold qualification of D.Ed., he is not qualified to be appointed to that post. 9. The order of dismissal of petitioner's appeal is under challenge in the present writ petition. 10. On perusal of record and the relevant provisions of the Code framed for the Special Schools for Handicapped Students, which was in force since 1985, it appears that Clause 43 thereof prescribes qualil1cations for the teachers and other staff of Special Schools for the Handicapped Students. 10. On perusal of record and the relevant provisions of the Code framed for the Special Schools for Handicapped Students, which was in force since 1985, it appears that Clause 43 thereof prescribes qualil1cations for the teachers and other staff of Special Schools for the Handicapped Students. Clause 43 (three) (d) prescribes qualification to be possessed by a Special Teacher for orthopaedically handicapped students. In case of a Day School, the qualil1cation for a Teacher was SSC without any training, but in case of a Residential School, the prescribed qualil1cation was the Certil1cate of having passed a Primary School Examination, and he should be trained. However, it does not specify what type of training is required for the purpose of being qualified for this post. 11. In the present case, the school was a Primary Residential School imparting instructions from 1st to IVth Standards. Therefore, the essential qualification for being appointed as a Special Teacher was only to possess a certificate of having passed the Primary School Examination, and training. 12. Learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader Mrs. Khade has brought to the notice of this Court a Govt. Resolution dated 18th August, 2004. issued by the Department of Social Justice. Cultural Affairs. Sports and Special Assistance, Govt. of Maharashtra, which prescribes qualification for appointment of staff for the schools for Physical Handicapped Students. Schedule-B annexed thereto makes a mention of those qualifications. Item No.3 in that Schedule pertains to Special Teachers. It provides that the qualifications would be a Certificate of Secondary or Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination with a special training for the concerned categories of the handicapped students. However, for the orthopaedically handicapped students, the additional qualification would be D.Ed. But, for conducting classes from Vth Standard onwards, a teacher should hold qualification as per the School Code of the Education Department. 13. There is no dispute that as per the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, and the School Code, for being appointed as a Teacher for conducting classes of Ist to IVth standards, necessary qualification is SSC, D.Ed., However. for conducting higher classes, the qualil1cation is graduation with B.Ed., 14. In view of this. qualification for the Special Teachers to conduct classes from 1st to IVth Standards of orthopaedically handicapped students is SSC or HSC with D.Ed .. for conducting higher classes, the qualil1cation is graduation with B.Ed., 14. In view of this. qualification for the Special Teachers to conduct classes from 1st to IVth Standards of orthopaedically handicapped students is SSC or HSC with D.Ed .. However, the criterion of holding this qualification applies only from 18th August, 2004 when the Govt. Resolution referred to above was issued. There is nothing to show that the said Govt. Resolution would have a retrospective effect. or that any person, who was duly qualil1ed under the previous Code, would be rendered unfit if the person concerned does not hold qualifications as per the above referred Gov!. Resolution. That apart, if this Govt. Resolution is compared with Clause 43 of the Code for Special Schools for Physically Handicapped Students, it would appear that prior to issuance of Govt. Resolution dated 18th August, 2004, the qualification for being appointed as a Special Teacher for a Residential School for Orthopaedically Handicapped Students was passing of only a Primary School Examination and a training. The training did not necessarily mean D.Ed., or B.Ed. The petitioner was holding BEd., but not D.Ed. Under that Code, the petitioner was qualified for being appointed as a Special Teacher. He was appointed by order dated 3rd June. 1996, when the above referred qualifications prescribed in the Code were in force. If the petitioner was qualified for being appointed as a Special Teacher at the time of his appointment, he could not be rendered disqualified, if later on a change in the prescribed qualification was effected by the Govt., 15. It is material to note that ill the impugned order, the Divisional Social Welfare Officer referred to the Govt. Resolution dated 18th August. 2004 and the qualifications prescribed therein. On the basis of those qualifications and the qualifications prescribed under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act and the Rules framed there under, the said Appellate Authority came to a conclusion that the petitioner is not qualified for being appointed as a Special Teacher for imparting instructions to students of 1st to IVth standards. It shows that the Divisional Social Welfare Officer failed to consider the effect of the Govt. Resolution dated 18th August, 2004, and the qualifications prescribed in the Code as it stood before the Govt. Resolution dated 18th August, 2004. He has nowhere stated that the said Govt. Resolution has retrospective effect. It shows that the Divisional Social Welfare Officer failed to consider the effect of the Govt. Resolution dated 18th August, 2004, and the qualifications prescribed in the Code as it stood before the Govt. Resolution dated 18th August, 2004. He has nowhere stated that the said Govt. Resolution has retrospective effect. 16. The learned Counsel for respondent no.2 also contended that in view of Full Bench Judgment in case of Jayashree Sunil Chavan V s. State of Maharashtra & ors. [ 2000(3) Mh.L.J. 605 : (2000(3) ALL MR 465)], D.Ed., is a requisite minimum qualification for teaching students in primary schools, and B.Ed., qualification cannot be treated as equivalent thereto, hence a person holding a degree of B.Ed., is not qualified to be appointed as a teacher in the primary school. The Full Bench dealt with the qualifications for appointment of teachers in the primary schools which are governed by the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, which prescribes SSC, D.Ed. to be the minimum qualification for a teacher of primary school. In my considered opinion, that authority has no relevance and application to the facts of the present case as provisions of that Act, as far as qualifications for appointment as a Teacher are concerned, were not made applicable to the Special Schools for handicapped. 17. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 vehemently contended that the petitioner was not lawfully appointed after following a due procedure of recruitment or selection. It is material to note that the appointment order was issued on 3rd June, 1996 by one Shri, Devidas Kale, who was the Secretary of the School Committee as well as the Managing Committee of the Society. On the basis of that order, the petitioner had worked on the post of Teacher and as In-charge Headmaster for almost ten years. For the long period often years, nobody had objected to his appointment. The appointment order clearly shows that the petitioner was appointed on permanent basis. It appears that on 1st June. 2006, there was some change in the Managing Committee and after that, the present respondent no.2 claimed to have become the President and almost immediately after that, he issued termination order. The termination order appears to have been issued as a fall out of rivalry between some persons in the Managing Committee. It appears that on 1st June. 2006, there was some change in the Managing Committee and after that, the present respondent no.2 claimed to have become the President and almost immediately after that, he issued termination order. The termination order appears to have been issued as a fall out of rivalry between some persons in the Managing Committee. The termination order was issued mainly on three grounds, namely [1] in 1998-99, the petitioner had issued a Progress Card showing one Deepak Pandurang Pandav to have passed IXth Std., examination even though he was not a student on the roll of the school, [2] the petitioner had not signed the muster roll since 17th May, 2006, which indicated that he was no more in need of the post of teacher and Headmaster, and [3] the petitioner was unauthorizedly absent from duty since 17th June, 2006 in spite of the letters given to him on 30th June, 2006 and 7th July, 2006. 18. In view of the fact that the petitioner was a permanent teacher, he could not have been dismissed from service without holding a proper enquiry against him. Part 3 and Part 4 Chapter-3 of the Code for the Special Schools provides for the disciplinary proceedings, punishments, which may be imposed on the employees and the procedure to be followed during enquiry. Clause 77 thereof provides for the procedure to be followed for imposition of major penalties. Part 4 deals with the procedure of enquiry to be held for the purpose of imposition of major penalties, including dismissal or removal from service. These rules clearly provide that a charge-sheet has to be issued to the concerned employee and enquiry shall be held, and if after the enquiry, it is found that the charges were proved, the delinquent can be removed from service. From Clause 82 read with Para 3(d) of Appendix-I of the Code, it is clear that the power to terminate the services of an employee or to demote or degrade an employee can be exercised only by the Managing Committee of the School 19. From Clause 82 read with Para 3(d) of Appendix-I of the Code, it is clear that the power to terminate the services of an employee or to demote or degrade an employee can be exercised only by the Managing Committee of the School 19. In the present case, no charge-sheet was issued, no enquiry was held, no opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend himself against the charges levelled in the termination order, nor in any enquiry, the petitioner was found guilty of the charges, and the termination order was issued by the respondent no.2, who claims to be President of the Society. Moreover, there is nothing to show that the termination order was issued by the School Committee. In view of this, the termination, order is per se illegal and without any authority and, therefore, it is liable to be quashed and set aside. 20. The petitioner is, thus entitled to be reinstated to the post of Special Teacher from the date of termination with continuity of service and all benefits including full back wages. 21. It may be noted that the respondent no.2 alone issued the illegal termination order without following the procedure laid down in law and without taking the Managing Committee of the School into confidence and because of disputes in management. Therefore, it would be unjust if the Management of the Society is required to her the burden of the hack wages. The school was run without any grant-in-aid prior to 27th March. 2006. After that, it started receiving grant-in-aid. There is no justification that the Govt., should pay the wages for illegal termination by an individual. i.e., respondent no.2. 22. Fur the aforesaid reasons, the petition is allowed in following terms:- [al The impugned order passed by the Divisional Social Welfare Officer, Amravati. is set aside. [b) The Order dated IstJuly.2006/l2th July, 2006 issued by the respondent no.2 terminating the services of the petitioner is also hereby set aside, and the respondent no. 1 is directed to reinstate the petitioner to the same post with continuity of service from the date of termination of his services and to pay full back wages. is set aside. [b) The Order dated IstJuly.2006/l2th July, 2006 issued by the respondent no.2 terminating the services of the petitioner is also hereby set aside, and the respondent no. 1 is directed to reinstate the petitioner to the same post with continuity of service from the date of termination of his services and to pay full back wages. [c] The order in respect of reinstatement shall be implemented within thirty days from this date and the Management shall pay back wages to the petitioner within two months from this date and the Management shall be entitled to recover the amount of back wages from the respondent no.2. 23. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Petition allowed.