Bihar HC Reinstates Teacher Fired For Being Untrained, Gives Pre-2015 Appointee Until August 31, 2028 To Complete D.El.Ed.

The petitioner was appointed as a Block Teacher on 24 October 2013 and joined service. His services were terminated by order dated 23 May 2023 because he had been appointed untrained and had not obtained the required training during his service

He sought reinstatement, relying on the Supreme Court’s directions in *Abdul Baqui Ansari & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.* and a subsequent direction of the Director of Primary Education allowing certain teachers appointed before 31 March 2015 time to acquire the D.El.Ed. qualification by 31 August 2028

The petitioner amended the writ petition to challenge the termination order

Section 23(2) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, as amended in 2017, governs the training qualification required of teachers

In *Abdul Baqui Ansari & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.*, order dated 28 July 2026, the Supreme Court directed that the teachers covered by its order be allowed to continue in their respective posts, while treating them as freshly appointed from the date they acquired training; their earlier service was not to be treated as regular service

The Supreme Court also considered the effect on students of creating vacancies by terminating teachers and the State’s authority to frame appointment rules

The Director of Primary Education’s letter dated 1 October 2026 directed that eligible teachers appointed before 31 March 2015 be given until 31 August 2028 to acquire the D.El.Ed. qualification, and that teachers terminated pursuant to the relevant directions be reinstated

The petitioner’s appointment pre-dated 31 March 2015, and his termination was solely for failure to obtain training

The High Court applied the Supreme Court’s directions in *Abdul Baqui Ansari*, which contemplated continuation in service rather than termination, subject to the teacher acquiring the required training and to the rule that service before acquiring training would not count as regular service

The State did not dispute the applicable proposition of law

In light of the Supreme Court’s directions and the Director’s letter extending the qualification deadline, the Court held that the petitioner should be reinstated and permitted to obtain the qualification by the stated date

It directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner forthwith and permit him to resume duties at the school where he had served before termination

The petitioner must acquire the required trained status by 31 August 2028; failing that, he may be removed from service in accordance with the Supreme Court’s directions