JUDGMENT : 1. Since the common issue is involved in these two writ petitions, and therefore, they are decided by this common order and judgment. However, the facts are taken from SCA No. 5022 of 2010. 2. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the judgment of the Gujarat Primary Education Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “The Tribunal”) passed in Application No. 196 of 2000 dismissing the application of the present petitioner. 3. The petitioner, who is possessing qualification of B.A., B.Ed and was appointed with respondent No. 2-School as a teacher on 9th July, 1984. It is the case of the petitioner that the school-management was not paying the salary as per 5th Pay Commission. Therefore, she approached the Tribunal by filing an Application No. 198 of 1999 and in view of the compromise, the said proceeding by the school-Management was withdrawn vide a pursis dated 7th February, 2000. 4. A Notice dated 20th September, 2000 was served to the petitioner by the respondent -Management stating therein that she would be treated as an untrained teacher and also questioned as to why the pay of untrained teacher should not be granted to her as her appointment is de hors the provision of Schedule-F of the Bombay Primary Education Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and the Bombay Primary Education Rules, 1949. 5. Another Show Cause Notice was issued dated 28th September, 2000 to the petitioner calling upon to show cause as to why her services should not be terminated, since she was appointed de hors the provision of Schedule-F of the Act. It is also stated that she was also appointed as an excess teacher in the school. In response to the said show cause notice, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 6th October, 2000. 6. By a letter dated 17th October, 2000, the petitioner was called upon by the school-management to submit the necessary documents. By a letter dated 21st October, 2000, the petitioner informed the school management that her appointment was made in accordance with the provision of law and there was no need to follow the provision of Schedule-F of the Act as the same came into force after her appointment. She has submitted that she is entitled for protection under Section 40-B of the Act. Thereafter, the petitioner was called upon personally by the school-management. She has submitted that she is entitled for protection under Section 40-B of the Act. Thereafter, the petitioner was called upon personally by the school-management. The petitioner has requested the school -management to supply some documents so she can file a detailed reply. It is the case of the petitioner that instead of supplying the documents, the school-management terminated her services on 23rd November, 2000. 7. Being aggrieved by the order of termination dated 23rd November, 2000, the petitioner has approached the Gujarat Primary Education Tribunal by filing Application No. 196 of 2000. After hearing the concerned parties, the Tribunal vide the impugned order dated 23rd September, 2009, rejected the application qua the present petitioner. 8. Ms. Tejal Vashi, learned Advocate appearing for Mr. Vijay Desai, learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the Tribunal has not considered the compromise arrived at between the present petitioner and the management in Application No. 198 of 1999, which was filed for grant of 5th Pay Commission. She has stated that the petitioner has worked for all these years and her services could not have been terminated. She has drawn the attention of this Court to the submission made by the petitioner before the Tribunal. She has contended that the termination is in violation of the provision of Section 40-B of the Act and the same is not complied with. 9. It is also contended by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the appointment of the present petitioner is much prior to Schedule-F i.e. 9th July, 1984, whereas Schedule-F came into operation only after 27th July, 1987. Hence, it cannot be said that the appointment of the present petitioner is de hors to the provision of Schedule-F of the Act. In view of her submission, she has urged that the impugned judgment and order is required to be quashed and set aside. 10. Per contra, Mr. Jayraj Chauhan, learned Advocate appearing for Mr. Mukund M. Desai, learned Advocate for respondents No. 3 and 4 – school management has submitted that the judgment of the Tribunal does not require any interference. As held by the Tribunal, the appointment of the petitioner is de hors to the provision of Schedule-F of the Act. He has pointed out that the appointment of the petitioner was on temporary basis. As held by the Tribunal, the appointment of the petitioner is de hors to the provision of Schedule-F of the Act. He has pointed out that the appointment of the petitioner was on temporary basis. He has also contended that the petitioner is not entitled to any protection under the Gujarat Primary Education Act as her appointment was prior to 1987. He has submitted that the petitioner was given an ample opportunity of hearing and as various letters/show cause notice would suggest. The petitioner was also informed vide order dated 6th November, 2000 and her reply was not accepted by the school -management. Hence, after affording the adequate opportunity to the petitioner, her services were terminated. He has relied upon the decision of the Larger Bench of this Court reported in the case of Sudip Tripathi and Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors. reported in 2007(1) GLH 590 in support of his contentions that the qualification of P.T.C. is essential for appointment as Primary Teacher, whereas the petitioner does not have the qualification of P.T.C. He has also submitted that the Tribunal has rightly observed that no documentary evidence was produced before it regarding the compromise arrived at between the school management and the present petitioner for the entitlement of salary. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the contention of the present petitioner in wake of the fact that no such document was produced by her before the Tribunal. 11. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 12. The petitioner was appointed on temporary basis vide order dated 9th July, 1984 as an Assistant Teacher in the School. Nothing is brought on record to show as to whether her appointment was made regular or not. In my considered opinion, the Tribunal has rightly observed that the petitioner was appointed de hors the provision of Schedule-F of the Act. It is also not disputed that the petitioner was not possessing the qualification of P.T.C. as required under the Regulations. The petitioner has miserably failed before the Tribunal in establishing the fact that her appointment was not made in accordance with the Rules. The Tribunal has rightly observed that at the time of appointment of the petitioner, the provision of Schedule-F was in force. The petitioner has miserably failed before the Tribunal in establishing the fact that her appointment was not made in accordance with the Rules. The Tribunal has rightly observed that at the time of appointment of the petitioner, the provision of Schedule-F was in force. After detailed discussion on the litigation before this Court as well as before the Apex Court on the provision of Schedule-F of the Act, the Tribunal has concluded that her appointment was not just and proper. The Supreme Court lifted the stay order on the Schedule-F of the Act on 23rd March, 2000, whereas the appointment of the petitioner was made thereafter on 9th July, 1984. Hence, the aforesaid provision was required to be followed before making her appointment. 13. In the case of Geetaben Nathalal Solanki Vs. Jamnagar Education Society & 2, [SCA No. 5007 of 2000 with SCA No. 5008 of 2000] vide judgment dated 4.3.2016 this Court, after considering the various judgments on this issue, has held that the teachers who do not possess P.T.C. qualification and who are not appointed after following the provisions of the Act and the Schedule-F are not entitled to any protection under Schedule-F of the Rule, 1949, and their terminations on such ground was justified. 14. In present case, the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis without following the due procedure of law and hence, as per law enunciated in the judgments of this Court, the impugned judgment and order does not require any interference. The Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application of the petitioner. 15. In view of the above, the common judgment and order dated 23.09.2009 passed in Application No.196/2000 and Application No. 197/2000 by the Gujarat Primary Education Tribunal, Ahmedabad is hereby confirmed. Both petitions are dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.