IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18557 of 2009 1. KRISHNA GOPAL SINGH S/O LATE KAMESHWAR PRASAD SINGH R/O VILLAGE + P.O.- MOTHHA, P.S.- MARHOWRAHA, DISTT.- SARAN AT CHAPRA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SARAN AT CHAPRA 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SARAN AT CHAPRA 3. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION SARAN AT CHAPRA 4. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER MARHOWRAHA, P.O. + P.S. MARHOWRAHA, DISTT.- SARAN AT CHAPRA 5. MUKHIYA GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ NARHARPUR P.O.- NARHARPUR, P.S.- MARHOWRAHA, DISTT.- SARAN AT CHAPRA 6. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ NARHARPUR, P.O.- NARHARPUR, DISTT.- SARAN AT CHAPRA 7. THE DISTRICT TEACHER EMPLOYMENT APPELLATE AUTHORITY SARAN AT CHAPRA 8. PRAVEEN KUMAR S/O GYANDEO SINGH R/O VILLAGE + P.O.- PIRAUTA, P.S.- BANIYAPUR, DISTT.- CHAPRA ----------- 02/ 29.04.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel appearing for the State. Petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal, Saran at Chapra in Case No. 737 of 2009. By order dated 3.9.2009 the Tribunal has rejected the claim of the petitioner for continuing on the post of Panchayat teacher on which he was appointed subsequent to termination of Praveen Kumar. Petitioner’s case is that he was appointed against the vacancy created on termination of Praveen Kumar, as Praveen Kumar had been terminated, considering his appointment made on the basis of Vocational degree, treating as equivalent - 2 - to Intermediate. CWJC No. 14430 of 2007 had been filed by Praveen Kumar challenging his termination order, which was disposed of with an observation that reinstatement of petitioner shall abide by the final order passed in L.P.A. No. 469 of 2008. Subsequently L.P.A. No. 469 of 2008 was decided and it was held that Vocational degree is equivalent to Intermediate qualification. Since, in CWJC No. 14430 of 2007 there was an observation that reinstatement of Praveen Kumar shall be subject to order passed in L.P.A. No. 469 of 2008, Praveen Kumar started representing for his reinstatement, but no order was passed. He filed contempt petition and thereafter the respondents left with no other option, had to reinstate Praveen Kumar. The order passed in CWJC No. 14430 of 2007, was never challenged by the petitioner, as such, consequent to reinstatement of Praveen Kumar, petitioner was terminated, as petitioner had been appointed against the vacancy, created on account of termination of Praveen Kumar. Petitioner has been terminated from his service. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal erroneously did not consider this fact, that in the order passed - 3 - in CWJC No. 14430 of 2007, there is no direction for petitioner’s termination. The order of termination is based on a non-existing fact. In CWJC Nos. 14430 of 2007 and 2567 of 2008 simply, there was an observation for the reinstatement of Praveen Kumar, subject to final order in L.P.A. No. 469 of 2008. As submitted by the petitioner’s counsel, he had filed CWJC No. 10838 of 2007, challenging initial appointment of Praveen Kumar, but it was withdrawn for the reason that in the meantime Praveen Kumar was terminated and the petitioner managed to get appointed on the post. The reinstatement of Praveen Kumar, being consequential to petitioner’s termination. I do not find any error in the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal. Petitioner has liberty to represent his case before appropriate forum either for creation of post against which he can be adjusted, or post against which he may be appointed. This application is dismissed. DKS/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)