IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16314 of 2008 MD.MANSOOR ALAM, S/O ABDUL MAJEED, R/O VILLAGE- KAMLA, P.S. MANJHOL, BLOCK-CHERIYA BARIARPUR, DISTRICT-BEGUSARAI. ……………………… PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt of Bihar, Patna 3. The District Magistrate, Begusarai. 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Begusarai 5. The Block Development Officer Nawakathi, Begusarai. 6. The Block Education Extension Officer, Nawakathi, Begusarai. …………. Respondents. ---------- 2. 11.11.2009 Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the state. Petitioner’s prayer is for quashing the order contained in Memo No. 2871 dated 02.09.2008 issued by the Block Education Extension Officer, Nawakothi, Begusarai whereby a direction has been issued to the Principal of Middle School, Rajkapur Nawakothi to terminate the petitioner from the post of block teacher in the light of direction issued by the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt of Bihar, Patna as contained in letter No. 4240 dated 15.11.2007 and Memo No. 2171 dated 29.11.2007. Petitioner’s further prayer is for quashing the order issued by the Principal of concerned school terminating him from the service. Petitioner’s case is that he was selected for the post of block teacher considering his Maulvi degree equivalent to the intermediate which is the requisite qualification for being appointed 2 on the post of Panchayat/block teacher. Petitioner gave his joining and also completed his training. Subsequent to his appointment, the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt of Bihar, Patna issued letter No. 4240 dated 15.11.2007 whereby a direction was issued to all concerned authorities to remove such teachers from the post of Panchayat/Prakhand teachers who were appointed on the basis of their Upshastri or Maulvi degree. As per the letter, the Maulvi and Upshastri degrees were considered equivalent to intermediate but such degree was considered a requisite equivalent qualification for the purpose of Sanskrit teacher or Urdu teacher. Since there were no such posts for Sanskrit in primary schools, as such, appointment of persons having Upshastri degree could not have been made. Persons appointed as teachers with such degree were directed to be removed. In the case of persons having Maulvi degree, it was stated that they can be appointed only on the post of Urdu teacher and not as a general teacher. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the light of this direction, the Block Education Extension Officer, vide letter No. 2871 dated 02.09.2007 directed the Principal of the concerned school to terminate the petitioner from the service and in compliance of the direction, service of the petitioner was terminated by the Principal of the school. It has been stated that the issue relating to appointment of persons having Moulvi and Upshastri degree, under 2006 rules, 3 against the post of general teachers, has already been considered by this court in the case of Ribha Rani & others Vs The state of Bihar & Ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 12456/08) wherein it has been held that Upshastri and Maulvi degrees were treated equivalent to intermediate degree under the rules. The subsequent circular issued by the Education Department relating eligibility of persons holding Upshastri and Maulvi degree, cannot be a ground for terminating them from service, when appointed as teachers treating such degrees equivalent to Intermediate. The state government has powers under rule 19 of the Rules to issue notification and circulars for clarification of the provisions or rules but so far the changing eligibility criterion is concerned, it cannot be treated as clarification or an order removing the defects in implementation of the rules, such facts can be brought about only by suitable amendment in the rule. In case such amendments are brought, that can be implemented from a prospective date. After going through the judgment and order passed in Ribha Rani’s case, I find that in the entire judgment, there is no such finding recorded with respect to Moulvi degree. Specific finding has been recorded with respect to Upshastri degree. The reason that there is no such finding in the judgment relating to Moulvi degree, is obvious as under rule 6 of 2006 Rules, specific provision has been made for appointment of persons having Moulvi degree against the Urdu teachers’ post. Since the rule has already specified that Moulvi degrees though equivalent to intermediate, 4 persons having such degree, can be appointed only against the post of Urdu teachers and not on the post of general teachers. Case of the petitioner cannot be equated with the case of such teachers who were appointed against the general posts having Upshastri degree. Counsel for the petitioner tried to persuade this court making submission that rule 6 cannot be read in isolation, it will have to be read with rule 8. But I find that there being a specific provision under the rules relating to Moulvi degree. The case of the petitioner cannot be decided in the light of judgment and order passed in Ribha Rani’s case. Since the petitioner has been dismissed from the service in the light of letter No. 4240 dated 15.11.2007, for the reason that having Moulvi degree, he was appointed as a general teacher, I do not find any error in the order. This writ application is dismissed. The petitioner has not challenged the virus of the rules. He has liberty and option to challenge it. AKV/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)