Allowed

Union of India and Ors. v. Smt. Sunita Singh and Ors.

Bombay HC14 Dec 2011WP/6993/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows the Union of India's writ petition and sets aside the Central Administrative Tribunal's order reinstating a primary teacher. The court held that the teacher, lacking the requisite B.Ed. degree from a UGC-recognised university, was ineligible for appointment, and the C.A.T. erred in not emphasising statutory eligibility over absence of dishonesty.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of C.A.T. dated 16.03.2011 set aside; original application before C.A.T. dismissed.

Union of India and Ors. Vs Smt. Sunita Singh… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

1 WP6993/11

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
 WRIT PETITION NO.6993 OF 2011

¶4

Union of India and others ...Petitioners

¶5

v/s
Sunita Singh and anr. ...Respondents

¶6

Ms Neeta Masurkar for Petitioners.
Mr R.R. Shetty for Respondent No.1.

¶7

CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND ANOOP V. MOHTA JJ.

¶8

DATE : 14TH DECEMBER 2011.

¶9

2 WP6993/11

¶10

P.C.:-

¶11

1]Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by consent of the parties.

¶12

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

¶13

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,

¶14

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

¶15

3 WP6993/11

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

challenged in the present petition.

¶19

3]In out opinion, as it is an admitted

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

4 WP6993/11

¶23

qualified. Merely because the Teacher herself may
not be responsible or may not have deliberately

¶24

taken admission in a university which is not
recognised, the students to whom she would teach

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

to be considered. It appears from the order of the
Central Administrative Tribunal that that aspect is
totally excluded from consideration. Merely because

¶28

the respondent No.1 did not deliberately suppress

¶29

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

¶30

not hold the qualification laid down for being
appointed as Primary Teacher, the Central
Administrative Tribunal was not at all justified in

¶31

5 WP6993/11

¶32

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

¶33

No.1 before the Central Administrative Tribunal is
dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶34

Parties to act on the copy of this order

¶35

duly authenticated by the Sheristedar / Private
Secretary of this Court.

¶36

Certified copy expedited.

¶37

( JUSTICE D.K. DESHMUKH )

¶38

( JUSTICE ANOOP V. MOHTA )

Union of India and Ors. v. Smt. Sunita Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India and Ors. v. Smt. Sunita Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jyoti Deepak Mhettar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

The Sanjeevan Gramin Vaidyakiya Samajik Sahayata Pratishthan Vs the Mumbai University and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs Shri. Vijay Sharad Kulkarni

Surekha Shirish Dogmane Vs Chinchani Tarapur Education Society'S English Medium School Secondary Div

Sitaram Pandurang Kadam Vs State of Maharashtra through Dept of Gram Vikas and Ors.

Sujaysingh Rajendrasingh Rajput Vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Social Welfare Dept and Ors.