1 WP6993/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6993 OF 2011 Union of India and others ...Petitioners v/s Sunita Singh and anr. ...Respondents Ms Neeta Masurkar for Petitioners. Mr R.R. Shetty for Respondent No.1. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND ANOOP V. MOHTA JJ. DATE : 14TH DECEMBER 2011. 2 WP6993/11 P.C. :- 1] Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2] Admitted facts are that the respondent No.1  Sunita Singh was appointed as a Primary Teacher in Primary School of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghathan, Ahmedabad in the year 1992. She produced B.A. Degree awarded to her by Meerut university, Uttar Pradesh and B.Ed. Degree from Varanseya Sanskrit Vishwa Vidyalaya, Uttar Pradesh. Admitted position is that in order to be eligible to be considered for appointment as Teacher, the candidate must have B.A. Degree and training qualification i.e. B.Ed. Degree, both awarded by a recognised University. Admittedly, the B.Ed. Degree which was produced by the respondent No.1 is not from any University recognised by University Grants Commission and therefore the respondent No.1 never possessed any training qualification. When the employer came to know that the respondent No.1 s B. Ed. Degree cannot 3 WP6993/11 be considered as training qualification, her services came to be terminated on 26th April 2006. That order was challenged by the respondent No.1 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Central Administrative Tribunal by its order dated 16th March 2011 allowed the petition filed by the respondent No.1 and set aside the order terminating her services, granted reinstatement in service, however, without back wages. This order is challenged in the present petition. 3] In out opinion, as it is an admitted position that the respondent No.1 did not possess any training qualification and therefore, she was not eligible to be appointed as Primary Teacher, the Central Administrative Tribunal could not have interfered with the termination order. The respondent No.1 was working as Primary Teacher. Right to primary education is a fundamental right guaranteed to the students by the Constitution of India. This right will include a right to the students to be taught by Teachers who are duly 4 WP6993/11 qualified. Merely because the Teacher herself may not be responsible or may not have deliberately taken admission in a university which is not recognised, the students to whom she would teach for so many years cannot be made to suffer on untrained Teacher. The schools are established to impart education to the students. As the purpose of establishing schools is to impart education to the students while considering the question whether an order terminating the services of the Teacher is valid or invalid or whether that Teacher deserves to be continued in service the interest of students has to be considered. It appears from the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal that that aspect is totally excluded from consideration. Merely because the respondent No.1 did not deliberately suppress anything, then also the students to whom she will be teaching cannot be made to suffer. In our opinion, once it is established that the respondent No.1 does not hold the qualification laid down for being appointed as Primary Teacher, the Central Administrative Tribunal was not at all justified in 5 WP6993/11 interfering with the termination order. In the result therefore, petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 16th March 2011 is set aside. Original application filed by the respondent No.1 before the Central Administrative Tribunal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar / Private Secretary of this Court. Certified copy expedited. ( JUSTICE D.K. DESHMUKH ) ( JUSTICE ANOOP V. MOHTA )