IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6377 of 2010 1. ZALIM MIAN S/O RAJ GULAM MIAN R/O VILL DHOOM NAGAR, P.S.SHIKARPUR, DISTT-WEST CHAMPARAN Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR , THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. DIRECTOR , PRIMARY EDUCATION GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION WEST CHAMPARAN AT BETTIAH 4. BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER NARKATIAGANJ, WEST CHAMPARAN 5. MUKHIYA , GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ CHAMUA, BLOCK NARKATIAGANJ, WEST CHAMPARAN 6. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ CHAMUA, NARKATIAGANJ, WEST CHAMPARAN ----------- 3 07/03/2011 Petitioner moved the High Court because the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority upheld removal of the petitioner from the post of Panchayat teacher. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he had validly issued degree in his favour as he had undergone training as a teacher as would be evident from annexure-1 series. His initial appointment was based on such a certificate but on a so called bogies of illegality, a re-enquiry was held which lead to fresh process of screening of appointment on which an objection was raised that the petitioner did not - 2 - fulfill the required criteria of having completed two years training as a teacher as was required under the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Employment and Service Condition) Act, 2006. Emphasis is on Rule 8(3) where the mandate of two years training has been laid down. In the counter affidavit which has now been filed, stand has been taken that the petitioner had completed a short period training of less than a year and that is not sufficient compliance of the Rules. If the petitioner has no minimum eligibility, there is no question of allowing him to function or continue as a Panchayat teacher despite inadequacy of his experience which is not denied. Learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter submits that there are other persons with similar training who have been allowed to work. On this, the Court can only say that subsistence of an illegality cannot create a right in favour of the petitioner. A wrong is always a wrong which cannot be corrected by yet another wrong perpetuating an illegality which he has on the face of the record. If the petitioner is so interested, he may point out to the authorities the names of such persons who are - 3 - continuing in similar circumstance and the authorities would be obliged to take action against them. No right, however, in favour of the petitioner accrues. This writ application has no merit. It is dismissed. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)