JUDGMENT Arun Mishra, J. 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing an order (P. 4) dated 2nd August, 1991 of termination of her services. Petitioner was appointed as teacher in the Army School, Sagar Cantt, the Board of Management which runs the school. The school is affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education and has been established by the Army Personnel Welfare Society Lukhnow. The institution is receiving, cent percent grant-in-aid by the Central Government (Defence budget). There were several vacancies of teachers. An advertisement was issued. Petitioner applied she was selected on the post of Primary School teacher as per order (P.1) dated 29-9-1988. The qualification which was prescribed, in the advertisement was that candidate should have passed matriculation, B.A., B.Sc. and extra qualification was degree in Education or B.T. Petitioner was appointed on the post of teacher after she was selected by the Interview Board. There was no condition in the appointment-order that she has to pass the degree in Education. Petitioner rendered the services. A notice (P.2) was issued by which petitioner was required to submit an undertaking that she was willing to1 appear in B.Ed. Examination through correspondence course. Petitioner immediately consented to the above proposal and submitted her undertaking for appearance in B.Ed, course by correspondence. Application was forwarded to the Barkatullah University, Bhopal. Her application was rejected on the ground that she has not completed 3 years teaching period on 30-6-1990. A letter (P. 3) dated 28-6-1991 was issued by University that she will be admitted in B.Ed. correspondence course in next session. It is averred that petitioner tried her best to get the admission in B.Ed. course in 1990 but she could not be admitted in the previous year. To the utmost surprise of the petitioner an order (P.4) was passed on 2-8-1991. Respondents terminated the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 3-10-1991. The reason for termination is that the school has been upgraded to class XIth and Central Board of Secondary Education has placed an embargo on untrained teaching staff, thus, the order was passed. It is submitted that petitioner had put in 3 years service. In the appointment order condition of obtaining B.Ed. was not mentioned. The reason for termination is that the school has been upgraded to class XIth and Central Board of Secondary Education has placed an embargo on untrained teaching staff, thus, the order was passed. It is submitted that petitioner had put in 3 years service. In the appointment order condition of obtaining B.Ed. was not mentioned. It was not essential at the time of appointment that teacher should possess B.Ed., qualification, hence, her services could not have been terminated on the ground that she did not possess the qualification of B.Ed. The condition which was added subsequently was unreasonable. She tried her best to get admission in 1990 in correspondence course but the University did not allow admission in the B.Ed., as such her removal is illegal and arbitrary. 2. A return has been filed by the respondents No. 1 and 2. It is contended in the return that the "Management Committee may appoint non B.Ed. teacher in Case of non-availability of B.Ed. qualified teacher but it is incorrect to say that B.Ed. is not an essential qualification, it is one of the condition of the Employment. Petitioner was just managing to teach. This could not be tolerated for long to lack of qualification. All the teachers of the school are required to be B.Ed. qualified. Since the petitioner was not fully qualified, she was advised to pass her B.Ed. examination through correspondence course. She failed to do so in 3 years. She given more than one year's time to pass it. Petitioner ought to have obtained qualification within 3 years. After continuous pursuance and warning petitioner did not pass her B.Ed. examination. The school invited the application from eligible candidates in the year 1994. Petitioner has passed B.Ed. in the year 1993. She was called for interview. She appeared but was not selected, as such no case has been made out to make interference in this writ petition. 3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed after following the selection procedure in the year 1998. Appointment order (P.I.) was issued on the regular basis. This fact has also not been disputed that there was no condition mentioned in the order of appointment dated 29th September, 1998 that she has to pass B.Ed. examination. There is nothing to doubt that at the time of appointment, condition of B.Ed. was not insisted or laid down in order of appointment. This fact has also not been disputed that there was no condition mentioned in the order of appointment dated 29th September, 1998 that she has to pass B.Ed. examination. There is nothing to doubt that at the time of appointment, condition of B.Ed. was not insisted or laid down in order of appointment. In the return it has been mentioned in para 1(e) that the Management Committee may appointment non B.Ed. teacher in case of non-availability of B.Ed. qualified teacher. It is not case set up in return that at the time of petitioner's appointment B.Ed. qualified teacher was available. For the first time after the upgradadon of the school to the XIth class, an undertaking was asked as per communication (P. 2), petitioner has submitted undertaking forthwith of obtaining the B.Ed. qualification. The CBSE has issued a letter on 2-7-1990 which is reflected in letter (P. 2). Petitioner has immediately applied for obtaining B.Ed. qualification by "correspondence course to the Barkatullah University, Bhopal, as apparent from communication (P. 3) dated 28-6-1991. She had applied in the year 1990 itself. There is mention in the letter (P.3) dated 28-6-1991 of Barkatullah University that for certain reasons the case of petitioner and others could not be considered for admission in the last batch i.e. 1990. This year again they want to apply for this course and the University may consider their cases considering the qualification, experience which they have to their credit. It was further mentioned that the next session was to start from September, 1991 hence, University may consider their cases in September for the next session, provided they complete the forms well in time. Thus, it is clear that petitioner has at no point of time failed to comply with the circular (P. 2). She has submitted not only the undertaking but applied for admission in correspondence course B.Ed., to the Barkatullah University. University has failed to give the admission as apparent from letter (P.3) issued by the University. Thus, it is clear that petitioner has at no point of time failed to comply with the circular (P. 2). She has submitted not only the undertaking but applied for admission in correspondence course B.Ed., to the Barkatullah University. University has failed to give the admission as apparent from letter (P.3) issued by the University. The University has assured the admission to be given in the year 1991 in the correspondence course but the respondents No. 1 and 2 did not wait even upto the month of September, 1991 and terminated the services of the petitioner as per order (P.4) dated 2nd August, 1991 on the ground that CBSE has placed an embargo on untrained teaching staff and petitioner has failed to comply with the circular dated 7th July, 1990, as such services were terminated w.e.f. 3rd October, 1991. 4. Firstly it is clear that the condition of passing B.Ed. qualification was imposed subsequently pursuant to the upgradation of the school. Secondly it was not mentioned in the appointment order that she has to obtain such a qualification for the first time respondents No. 1 and 2 have issued a circular (P. 2) in the year 1990 requiring the petitioner to obtain the B.Ed. qualification; she immediately submitted undertaking and applied to the University to obtain admission in B.Ed., thus, the mention in the order (P.4) that she has failed to comply with the Circular dated 7-7-1990 is incorrect. Petitioner has done whatever was in her power and control. The respondents were aware that application was duly submitted by petitioner for admission to B.Ed. course which could not be considered by the University in the year 1990 and University has assured the admission to be given in B.Ed. correspondence course in September, 1991, thus, the order of termination of the services is absolutely illegal. Petitioner has not been given due and adequate opportunity of obtaining the qualification of B.Ed. since the condition was imposed subsequently for no fault on the part of the petitioner, she could not have been penalized, she had applied immediately to the University in the year 1990 itself. She has obtained the qualification of B.Ed. in the year 1993, is not in dispute. This fact has been mentioned in the return. Termination of services is illegal more so in view of stand in the return that in case of non availability of candidate having B.Ed. She has obtained the qualification of B.Ed. in the year 1993, is not in dispute. This fact has been mentioned in the return. Termination of services is illegal more so in view of stand in the return that in case of non availability of candidate having B.Ed. qualification, non B.Ed. teacher could be appointed. Thus appointment of petitioner was not illegal. She had accepted subsequently imposed condition but was not given reasonable opportunity to attain further qualification which she has obtained subsequently. 5. Resultanlly, writ petition is allowed. The order of removal of the petitioner is quashed. Petitioner is directed to be reinstated in the service. Parties to bear their own costs as incurred.