IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5837 of 2008 BISHAL ANAND WATSA, S/o Sri Dinesh Jha, R/o At + P.O.-Pir Mokama, P.S.-Falka, District-Katihar. ............Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The District Magistrate, Katihar. 5. The District Superintendent of Education, Katihar. 6. The Block Development Officer, Falka, Katihar. 7. The Block Education Extension Officer, Falka, Katihar. 8. The Mukhiya/Secretary Gram Panchayat has pir Mokam Falka, Katihr. 9. Amarkant Madhukar, S/o Sri Banarsi Prasad Singh, R/o At + P.O.-Orlaha, P.S.-Barahara Kothi, District-Purnea. ............Respondents. For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Juber Ansari, Adv. For the State : Mr. Anil Kumar Verma, AC to SC-3. For Respondent Mr. D. K. Sinha, Sr. Adv. No. 9. Mr. Ravi Bhushan, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Anand, Adv. ------------- 7/ 10.05.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner, counsel appearing for the State as well as respondent No. 9. The writ application has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the appointment letter of respondent No. 9 and for a direction to the respondent authorities to appoint the petitioner on the post of Panchayat teacher in Pir Mokam Gram Panchayat Block-Falka in the district of Katihar. Petitioner is aggrieved because his candidature was not considered by the respondents, for the reason that he has passed his intermediate in vocational course though, the intermediate in vocational is also equivalent to intermediate in general course. During the pendency of the writ application I.A. No. 585 2 of 2010 and I.A. No. 3332 of 2010, were filed by the petitioner. By filing I.A. No. 585 of 2010, the petitioner has brought this fact to the notice of the court that issue involved in the present writ application has already been decided in C.W.J .C. No. 4878 of 2007 and analogous cases. The L.P.A. No. 469 of 2008 preferred against the order dated 19.02.2008 the same has also been dismissed by the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 469 of 2009. I.A. No. 3332 of 2010 was filed for amending the prayer. The amended prayer was for quashing of the order dated 18.01.2010 contained in Memo no. 644 of 2010, passed by the Member, District Teachers Appointment Appellate Tribunal, Katihar, in Appeal No. 1825 of 2009. An appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the Tribunal, on the ground that it was sub- judiced before the High Court and also that the petitioner, having passed his intermediate in vocational course, not considered as valid degree for appointment, was not eligible for appointment. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal before passing the order did not consider the order, passed by the High Court in favour of the vocational course as well as departmental order contained in Memo No. 335 dated 19.09.2008, whereby recognition to vocational course in appointment of Panchayat Teacher given by the department. Petitioner’s case is that having 73.10% marks in intermediate vocational examination, he is more qualified than respondent No. 9, having 68.11.% marks in intermediate. 3 I find that the issue, relating to eligibility for appointment of a candidate, having intermediate degree with vocational course, was allowed by the Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 1637 of 2007. The state, thereafter, filed Civil Review No. 146 of 2007, which was considered and rejected by a long reasoned order, against the order passed in review, L.P.A. was preferred by the State and the same was also rejected. Now, it is a settled law that persons having intermediate with vocational course were eligible for appointment on the post of Panchayat Teacher, under 2006 Rules. The vocational degree and other equivalent degrees have been made not a proper qualification. Subsequently, through amendment brought in 2008. At that time, amendment will have no application in the case of the petitioner. Considering the legal position and the factual aspect of the matter, I find that the order passed by the appellate Tribunal dated 18th January, 2010, in Appeal No. 1828/2009 is quashed. The respondent Nos. 5, 6, 7 & 8 are directed to take appropriate steps for appointment of the petitioner on the post of Panchayat Teacher. The appointment of respondent No. 9 is directed to be cancelled. This application is allowed. Sanjeet/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)