IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.W.J.C. No.16866 of 2007 1. Vijay Kumar, son of Sri Sukdeo Prasad Renu, resident of village Birpur, P.S. Birpur, district Supaul 2. Pawan Kumar Deo, son of Sri Yogendra Deo, resident of village Sitapur, P.S. Birpur, district Supaul 3. Nutan Rana, wife of Bijay Kumar, resident of Village, Birpur, P.S. Birpur, district Supaul 4. Soni, wife of Deepak Kumar Gupta, Resident of village Birpur, P.S. Birpur, district Supaul .. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar through it’s Commissioner-cum- Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 2. The it’s Commissioner-cum- Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 4. The District Magistrate, district Supaul 5. The District Education Officer, Supaul 6. The District Superintendent of Education, Supaul 7. The Block Development Officer, Basantpur Block, Supaul 8. The Block Education Extension Officer, Basanpur Block, Supaul 9. The Panchayat Secretary, Grampanchayat Kochgama, district Supaul 10. The Panchayat Secretary, Grampanchayat Parmanandpus, district Supaul 11. The Panchayat Secretary, Grampanchayat Banailipatti, district Supaul 12. The Panchayat Secretary, Grampanchayat Hridynagar, district Suapul 13. The Bihar School Examination Board, Senior Secondary Division, Patna through it’s Secretary 14. The Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Senior Secondary Division, Patna .. Respondents **** For the petitioners .. Mrs. Shashi Priya Pathak, Adv. For the State .. Mr. S.B. Kumar, S.C. XVI 2 For respondents 9, 11 and 12 .. M/S S. Kumar, A. Kumar & D.K. Upadhyay, Advs. **** /7/ 03.02.2009 Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the State. 2. Petitioners were appointed as Panchayat Teachers, but, subsequently they were removed from service on the ground that they possessed intermediate vocational degree and it was not considered as recommended qualification for appointment of Panchayat Teacher. The prayer of the petitioners was for quashing letter no. 48-12, dated 11.07.2007, issued by the Block Education Extension Officer, Basantpur Block, Supaul, withholding the salary of the petitioners and also for quashing letter no. 2666, dated 01.11.2007, whereby the District Superintendent of Education, Supaul, issued the order of termination of petitioners. 3. I.A. No. 631 of 2009 has been filed by the petitioners in order to bring certain developments, which took place during the pendency of the writ application. The District Superintendent of Education in the light of the orders passed in L.P.A. No. 469 of 2008, issued an order in favour of the petitioners on the direction of the Joint Secretary, Human 3 Resources Development Department, Patna, contained in Memo No. 3335, dated 09.09.2008. The District Superintendent of Education, by his order, contained in Memo No. 3682, dated 24.12.2008, Memo No. 3612, dated 24.12.2008 and Memo No. 3525, dated 15.12.2008, cancelled the earlier order whereby service of the petitioners was terminated. 4. Petitioners 1, 2 and 4 have already joined on the post of Panchayat Teachers, but, so far petitioner no. 3 is concerned, till now no such order has been issued. Counsel for the petitioners submits that similar order should be passed in favour of petitioner no. 3 also as she was also removed from her service on the basis of same impugned letter. The counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners are apprehensive of this fact whether their joining on the post of Panchayat Teachers in the light of orders in Annexure R/1 will be considered as fresh joining or they will get benefit of their past service experience. It is not clear from the impugned order, contained in Annexure R/1, but, it goes without saying that by order contained in Annexure R/1 of earlier termination order has been cancelled, as such, it will 4 be deemed that the petitioners continued in service for the period they were terminated, petitioners will be entitled for salary and other consequential benefits for this period as well. Respondent no. 6 is directed to issue similar order in favour of petitioner no. 3 as by the same impugned order her services were also terminated. 5. With these observations and directions, this application is disposed off. Cp:2/S.A. ( Mridula Mishra, J. )