IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19073 of 2010 Shobha Kumari, daughter of Sri Laxami Narayan Singh, Resident of village Kadilpur, P.O. Chak Majahid, P.S. Mahua, District Vaishali at present Prakhand Teacher in Up-graded Middle School, Shankarpur, Block Mahua, District Vaishali…………………………………………………………………………….Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The District Superintendent of Education, Vaishali at Hajipur. 3. The Block Education Extension Officer, Mahua Block, District Vaishali………………………………Respondents ------- For Petitioner: Mr. Naresh Chandra Verma, Advocate For the State: Mr. Shambhu Nath, A.C. to A.A.G.3 3 13.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. It appears that the petitioner was provisionally appointed as Panchayat Teacher in the school where she joined on 1st of January 2007. It is admitted that at the time of her appointment, she had produced her mark-sheet of Teachers Training Examination. Since she had not produced her certificate from the Bihar School Examination Board (in short, “the Board”), she was granted time for the same. She informed the Panchayat Secretary that for issuance of certificate, she had moved this Court through CWJC No.10169 of 2007 2 and her writ application was pending. Along with her application, she enclosed certificate of the learned counsel dated 03.09.2007. However, in spite of several opportunities having been granted to her, she still did not produce the certificate, her appointment was cancelled by the order of Mukhiya dated 15.12.2007 as contained in Annexure-C with the counter affidavit. In respect of her certificate of Teachers Training Examination, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly accepts that petitioner failed in attempt to get the certificate as the institution, from where she had appeared in the examination, was not recognized. Hence, her writ application for the purpose was dismissed by this Court. Therefore, net result was that petitioner did not had any Teachers Training qualification. In the circumstances, no fault can be found by the respondents in cancelling her appointment. However, since petitioner had not suppressed any fact at the time of appointment and she had in fact produced the mark-sheet of Teachers Training 3 Examination issued from the Board, this Court direct the respondents to pay salary of the petitioner of the period she had actually worked, after ascertaining her attendance from the records of the school. Payment should be released to her positively within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. This writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)