IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3072 of 2008 1. Pinki Kumari daughter of Tej Narain Mandal, resident of village Bhan Tekthi, P.S. Madhepura, District Madhepura. 2. Rajanish Kumar Razak, son of Puran Razak, resident of Muhalla Khalifabag, P.S. Kotwali, District Bhagalpur……………………………..…..Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 2. District Magistrate, Madhepura. 3. District Superintendent of Education-cum- District Programme Co-ordinator, Bihar Education Project, Madhepura. 4. Block Development Officer, Sinheswar Block, District Madhepura. 5. Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Dular Piprahi Sinheshwar Block, District Madhepura. 6. Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Dular Piprahi Sinheshwar Block, District Madhepura………………………………………………………..Respondents ----------- For Petitioners: M/s Rajesh Bhardwaj & Manoj Kumar, Advocates For the State: A. C. to G.P.10 4 05.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the State. Services of the petitioners as Panchayat Teachers were dispensed with by order of the Block Development Officer dated 30.01.2007 as contained in Annexure-5. In this order, the Block Development Officer has dealt with cases of three Panchayat Teachers against whom some complaints were received. So far as 2 petitioners are concerned, referring the letter of the Principal Secretary of the Human Resources Development Department dated 15.11.2007, he held that Intermediate qualification acquired by the petitioners from vocational course was not acceptable as fulfilling eligibility criteria for appointment as Panchayat Teachers. Hence, he directed for cancellation of their engagement. Learned counsel for the petitioners refers to two judgments of this Court in the case of Prakash Kumar Jha Vs. The State of Bihar, reported in 2008 (3) PLJR 282 and in the case of Ranjeet Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar, reported in 2007 (3) PLJR 746 and submits that this Court has already held that Intermediate qualification acquired from vocational course is equivalent to Intermediate qualification from a general course. He submits that in the said judgments, this Court has found that the said qualification acquired from Intermediate vocational course fulfils the eligibility criteria for appointment 3 on the post of Panchayat Teachers. He also refers to a letter of the Principal Secretary dated 15.11.2007, a copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-6 to the writ application, to show that in the last line of paragraph 3 of the letter, Principal Secretary himself has accepted that the Intermediate degree acquired from vocational course is, in fact, equivalent to Intermediate Degree from general course. Learned counsel for the State submits that though the letter does create some confusion but in view of the judgments of this Court, now degree of Intermediate acquired from vocational course has to be considered as equivalent degree of Intermediate from a general course. In that view of the matter, this Court finds that cancellation of engagement of petitioners as Panchayat Teachers is bad in law and, therefore, the same is set aside so far as petitioners are concerned. Respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioners 4 in service with all consequential benefits. The writ application is, thus allowed. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)