IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 11560 of 2010 1. UMESH PRASAD S/O SHREE CHANDRADEV PRASAD R/O VILL.- BASANT BIGHA, P.O.- PALIGANJ, P.S.- PALIGANJ, DISTT.- PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA 3. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PATNA 4. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, PATNA 5. BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, PALIGANJ, PATNA 6. MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ DAHIA, PALIGANJ, PATNA 7. MEMBER, DISTRICT TEACHER EMPLOYMENT APPELLATE AUTHORITY, PATNA ----------- 2 09.08.2010 The petitioner was appointed as Shiksha Mitra in the year 2003 by which time he was merely a matriculate. The same appointment was contractual for a period of eleven months but renewable. In 2004, State Government introduced a condition that the appointment of Shiksha Mitra would be renewed on an undertaking by the said persons to complete Intermediate Course with at least 45% marks within a period of 33 months. Petitioner’s employment was renewed from year to year and ultimately in 2006, the State Government abolished the post of Shiksha Mitra and absorbed all Shiksha Mitras working as Panchayat Teachers. Petitioner was, accordingly, absorbed as Panchayat Teacher. In the meantime, in the year 2007, petitioner secured his Intermediate examination with 51% marks yet his services were terminated on orders of the District Magistrate, Patna on the ground that he had not completed his Intermediate Course within the stipulated 33 months’ period. Consequently, petitioner was stopped from working. Petitioner came to this Court. This Court relegated the petitioner to the Tribunal which had since been constituted being the District Panchayat Teachers Appointment Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal again, taking the strict view of law that 2 petitioner had not completed his Intermediate Course within 33 months, dismissed his appeal. Hence, this present writ application. Learned counsel for the State does not dispute the position that now this Court has held in several judgments that once the person has completed the Intermediate Course, though after 33 months’ period, as stipulated, that cannot be a ground to terminate the service. The idea was to force petitioner and his like to improve their educational qualification. The purpose has been served. Petitioner has gained Intermediate qualification. Learned counsel for the State draws my attention to the order of the Tribunal contained in Memo No 225 dated 10.05.2010 passed in the case of petitioner and submits that the Tribunal has rejected the application because there would be difficulty in implementing the orders of the Court. I fail to understand the import of the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal noticed the order of this Court wherein it has clearly been stated that people who completed Intermediate Course, even after expiry of 33 months, cannot be terminated but while doing so, the Tribunal merely notices on speculation that how a person could complete his Intermediate Course as a full time course while working as Shiksha Mitra and further that the extension granted to the petitioner and his absorption being contrary to law at the time when it was done, the vacancy would have been filled up. On both these counts, the Tribunal fell in error. Whether the petitioner could have Intermediate degree or not is a part of history. Petitioner has completed and being declared pass by the competent Board, it is not open to the Tribunal to sit over the Bihar School Examination Board in appeal. To the second, it is totally 3 speculative if the Tribunal was so inclined, it ought to have noticed the concerned party and find out whether the petitioner was still working or there had been a vacancy and that had been filled up consequent to petitioner’s removal. Thus, I am left with no option but to set aside the order of the Tribunal in case of the petitioner and held that petitioner is competent to continue as Panchayat Teacher to which post he had been absorbed. He would, thus, be entitled to continue working provided he was not earlier terminated by orders of competent authority of the Panchayat and his vacancy was not already filled up because in such an event, petitioner should have brought these facts on record and prayed for consequential orders which have not been done. Thus, the writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation and directions. If the petitioner has been working then for the period, he has worked, he would be entitled to full remuneration which the Mukhiya and the Panchayat Secretary of the concerned Panchayat would ensure payment within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of this order before them. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)