IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1669 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1431 of 2011 With Interlocutory Application No. 7710 of 2011 In Letters Patent Appeal No.1669 of 2011 ====================================================== Santan Prajapati, S/o Ram Pati Prajapati, R/o Mohalla- Bahuan, P.O.- Sonhan, P.S.- Sonhan, Block- Bhabhua, District- Kaimur. .... .... Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Education Secretary Department of Human Resources Development, New Secretariat, Patna. 2. The District Magistrate, 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, Kaimur. 7. The Mukhiya, Bahuan Grampanchayat, Bhabhua, 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/Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Shyam Bihari Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Rajiv Roy, G.P.-5 with Mr. Arun Kumar, A.C. to G.P.-5 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Patna High Court LPA No.1669 of 2011 (2) dt.15-11-2011 2 / 3 2 2. 15-11-2011 Interlocutory Application No. 7710 of 2011: The delay of 46 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is condoned. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Letters Patent Appeal No.1669 of 2011: Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 4th August 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in above C.W.J.C. No. 1431 of 2011, the writ petitioner has preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The subject matter at issue is continuation of the appellant as a Shiksha Mitra after completion of the contractual period of second appointment in the month of May 2005. Admittedly, in the month of May 2005 the appellant did not possess the then prevalent qualification for appointment as Shiksha Mitra. Non-renewal of his appointment as Shiksha Mitra for want of required qualification was justified. However, relying upon the Government Circular dated 4th July 2008, the appellant claimed that he had improved his qualification and had passed Intermediate examination in the month of May 2006 i.e. within 33 months from the date of his last appointment. He, therefore, was entitled to reinstatement in service as Shiksha Mitra and absorption as a Panchayat Shikshak with effect from 1st July 2006. In our judgment in the matter of Renu Kumari Pandey v. State of Bihar [2011 (4) PLJR 297], we have expressed our doubt about the validity of the aforesaid Circular dated 4th July 2008 being contrary to the statutory provisions contained in the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teachers (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. Be that as it may, a Division Bench of this Court Patna High Court LPA No.1669 of 2011 (2) dt.15-11-2011 3 / 3 3 (Coram : Shiva Kirti Singh, J. and Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.) has, in the matter of Bagwan Mahato v. The State of Bihar & Ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 7719 of 2010 decided on 19th January 2011), interpreted the aforesaid Circular dated 4th July 2008 and has held that the said Circular is retroactive in operation. In other words, the Division Bench has held that the 33 months specified should be counted from the date of first appointment. The Bench has held, “In order to take benefit of concession given by that circular, a person must show and establish that he or she acquired the higher qualification within 33 months from the date of initial engagement on the post of Shiksha Mitra as Matriculate”. In the impugned judgment the learned single Judge has held that the appellant had not acquired the higher qualification of Intermediate within 33 months from the date of his initial appointment. He was, therefore, not entitled to the benefits under the Government Circular dated 4th July 2008. It is not in dispute that the appellant acquired Intermediate qualification in May 2006, nearly 40 months after the date of his initial appointment. The learned single Judge has rightly refused to extend the benefit of Government Circular dated 4th July 2008. No case for interference is made out. Appeal is dismissed in limine. Pawan/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)