IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 313 of 2011 (S/S) Smt. Mamta Sharma ………..Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. …Respondents. Present: Mr. A. V. Pundir, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Bihst, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate for respondent no.7. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.(Oral) Heard Mr. A. V. Pundir, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand and Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate present for respondent no.7. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade in a grant in aid private school, namely, “Nehru Junior High School, Roorkee Cantt”, District Haridwar on 5.4.2006. One of the essential qualifications for appointment of an Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade is B.Ed. degree. Apparently it seems that the petitioner does not have B.Ed. degree. The petitioner was subsequently given a show cause notice on 25.3.2011 by the committee of management, since it was alleged in the impugned order dated 1.4.2011 that since the petitioner has not given reply to the same, her services have been terminated. The petitioner though contends that against the show cause notice she has filed the reply. Learned counsel appearing for the committee of management Sri Manish Arora says that the petitioner procured the appointment concealing the relevant fact that the petitioner was not having minimum 2 qualification, which is B.Ed. therefore, her services have been terminated. The petitioner though contends that she was a “Shiksha Visharad”, which is equivalent to B.Ed. and therefore it is wrong to say that she was not having minimum qualification for getting appointment as Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade. Whether “Shiksha Visharad” is equivalent to B.Ed. is a matter, which has to be seen by the management committee and the Education Authority and this Court is presently not making any comments on this aspect. All the same, the impugned order has been passed behind the back of the petitioner, in violation of principle of natural justice and fairplay and the said order is liable to be quashed and is presently being quashed. All the same, since the very qualification of the petitioner is in question though this Court has set aside the impugned order, it also directs that the District Education Officer, Haridwar will immediately constitute an inquiry into the matter as to the education qualification of the petitioner and thereafter based on such findings of the District Education Officer, the Committee of Management should immediately proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law after giving her an opportunity of hearing. With the above observations, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. A copy of the order be given free of cost to the learned Chief Standing Counsel for compliance of the order by the Education Authority. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 9.8.2011 Kuldeep