IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.1431 of 2011 Santan Prajapati, son of Ram Pati Prajapati, resident of Mohalla- Bahuan, P.O. Sonhan, P.S. Sonhan, Block- Bhabhua, District-Kaimur (Bhabhua) Bihar .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Education Secretary, Department of Human Resources, New Secretariat, Patna 2. The District Magistrate, Kaimur, District-Kaimur (Bhabhua) 3. The District Education Officer, Kaimur (Bhabhua) 4. The Block Development Officer, Bhabhua, Kaimur 5. The Block Education Extension Officer, Bhabhua, Kaimur 6. The Panchayat Secretary, Bahuan Panchayat, Bhabhua, District- Kaimur 7. The Mukhiya, Bahuan Grampanchayat, Bhabhua, District- Kaimur 8. The Headmaster, Govt. Middle School, Bahuan, District- Kaimur 9. The District Superintendent of Education, Kaimur at Bhabhua 10. The Member, District Teacher Employment Appellate Tribunal, Kaimur (Bhabhua) ….. Respondents. ---------------------------------- For the petitioner: M/s.Abhya Kumar, R.C.Singh and Shyam Bihari Singh, Advocates For the State: Mr. Suresh Kumar, AC to GP 5. ----------------------------------- 2 4.8.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 15.5.2005 passed by the Mukhiya removing the petitioner from the post of Shiksha Mitra and the order dated 16.2.2010 passed in Appeal case No. 162/2009 passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Kaimur by which 2 the appeal of the petitioner has been rejected The short facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Shiksha Mitra on 21.2.2003. On that date he was matriculate and fulfilled the qualification for holding the said post. His 11 months contractual appointment was renewed 28.2.2004 and again on 2.3.2005. In the meantime, by circular dated 11.8.2004 the State Government enhanced the qualification from matriculation to intermediate and directions were issued that the contract of any person who does not possess the qualification of intermediate would not be renewed. Accordingly by order dated 15.5.2005 the petitioner was removed from the post of Shiksha Mitra. The petitioner thereafter on 13.5.2006 passed intermediate examination being student of 2004-06 session. Thereafter on 4.7.2008 the State Government came out with a circular based upon the order dated 12.2.2008 passed in LPA No. 940/2007 that those Shiksha Mitra who had obtained the intermediate qualification within thirty three months from the date of employment shall be considered as duly employed 3 and would become Panchayat/Block Teacher with effect from 1.6.2007 and would be treated as having been reappointed from the date of their removal. It appears that the petitioner thereafter approached the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority which has rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that he has obtained the intermediate qualification more than 33 months after his first appointment on 21.2.2003 and thus he is not entitled to the benefit of the circular dated 4.7.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the circular dated 4.7.2008 cannot be applied with retrospective effect and thus it is bad on the said ground. In my view, the said submission is wholly misconceived. The circular dated 4.7.2008 confers retrospective rights on those who had lost their rights as Shiksha Mitra and does not take away any vested right with retrospective effect by any executive action and for the said reason it cannot be said that the circular is bad in law. While it is not open to the executive authorities to take away vested right with 4 retrospective effect by executive action nothing prevents them from conferring rights retrospectively. Thus the circular dated 4.7.2008 cannot be held to be bad on that account. Moreover the order dated 12.2.2008 passed in LPA No. 940/2007 by this Court has also held that those matriculate Shiksha Mitras who had obtained intermediate qualification within thirty three months would be entitled to be reappointed and the government circular dated 4.7.2008 is based upon the said decision of this Court. Reliance by learned counsel for the petitioner on certain decisions by learned Single Judges to the contrary cannot be of any avail in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court which is binding upon me. Even otherwise, it cannot be held that the circular dated 4.7.2008 is bad on account of its retrospective effect. In the above circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order dated 16.2.2010 passed by the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority which is in 5 accordance with the circular dated 4.7.2008. The writ application is accordingly dismissed. S.Pandey ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)