IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10919 of 2009 Miss.Asha Kumari, aged about 31 years, D/O Late Surya Prasad Sharma, resident of village Piro, P.S. Piro, District- Bhojpur at Arrah …………. Petitioner Versus 1.The State Of Bihar 2.The District Education Officer, Bhojpur at Arrah 3.The Sub-Divisional Education Officer, Arrah South, District Bhojpur at Arrah 4.The Headmaster, S.S.High School, Jagdishpur, P.O. & P.S. Jagdishpur, District- Bhojpur at Arrah ………… Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr.Rajendra Pd. Singh,Sr.Adv. with M/s Rajeev Kumar Singh, Nawal Kishore Singh and Mukesh Kumar Singh, Adv. For the State : A.C. to S.C. VII. ---------- 4. 08/11/2010 In this writ application, petitioner has challenged the letter of the Sub-Divisional Education Officer, Arrah dated 26.6.2009, addressed to the Headmaster of Swarath Sahu High School, Jagdishpur, directing him to stop the salary of the petitioner and some other candidates as some matter was under enquiry by the Sub-Divisional Education officer. A copy of the said letter is contained in Annexure-1. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that in the advertisement for appointment of Teachers, one post of Physical Trained Teacher was also advertised. 2 The minimum qualification for appointment of Teachers including Physical Trained Teacher was graduation. As the petitioner was having the requisite qualification, she applied. In the category of Physical Trained Teacher, she was the only applicant, therefore, she was selected and appointed. At the time of appointment, a panel was prepared. Petitioner was awarded 5 extra marks as she was having Honours in the Graduation. This had been found to be wrong by the respondents and therefore, matter was taken up by the Sub- Divisional Education Officer for enquiry and orders have been issued by the impugned letter for stoppage of her salary. In the earlier counter affidavit filed in the case, it was stated that 5 marks for Honours was wrongly given to the petitioner and therefore her case requires further scrutiny. When the case was taken up on 11.10.2010, it was not denied that Graduation was the minimum qualification required for appointment and the petitioner was having that qualification. In view of the submission of learned senior counsel for the petitioner 3 that petitioner was the only candidate against the post of Physical Trained Teacher, learned counsel for the State was directed to seek instructions and file further specific affidavit on this submission of learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Today, another learned counsel appears for the respondents. He is not aware of the orders passed by this Court on the last date. In any case, no further affidavit has been filed denying the fact that the petitioner was the only candidate against the post of Physical Trained Teacher. In the circumstances, this Court has no option than to hold that grant of 5 marks for Honours to the petitioner could not affect her appointment as she was the only applicant for appointment on the post of Physical Trained Teacher. However, since it appears from Annexure-1 that the matter is still under scrutiny before the Sub-Divisional Education Officer, this Court refrains from giving any specific finding with regard to validity of appointment of the petitioner, but since admittedly, no final decision has been taken with regard to validity of her 4 appointment, this Court directs that the petitioner shall be entitled to her full salary from the month it has been stopped till final decision is taken in the matter by the respondents after complying with the Principles of Natural Justice. Arrears of salary of the petitioner must be paid to her within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and payment of her current salary shall continue and she will be allowed to work on the post till final decision is taken by the respondents. It is again made clear that before taking final decision, petitioner should be given full opportunity to meet the objections in respect of validity of her appointment by the concerned respondents. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Pradeep/ ( J. N. Singh,J.)