IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16344 of 2009 1. JANKI KUMARI W/O SRI RAJKUMAR R/O VILL.- RAMBHADRA, P.O.- HAZIPUR, P.S.- HAZIPUR, DISTT.- VAISHALI AT HAZIPUR 2. NILU KIRAN AZAD W/O SHYAM KUMAR SINGH R/O VILL.- SHAH JAHANPUR, (BHAGWANPUR RATI), P.O.- BALUKARAM, P.S.+DISTT.- VAISHALI AT HAZIPUR 3. USHA KUMARI W/O DINESH RAI R/O VILL.+P.O.- SONDHO, P.S.- GORAUL, DISTT.- VAISHALI AT HAZIPUR 4. KUMARI NIRMALA ROUSHAN W/O RAGHUNATH MAHTO R/O VILL.- PAIGAMBARPUR, GORIGAMA, P.O.- SONDHO, P.S.- GORAUL, DISTT.- VAISHALI AT HAZIPUR---------------PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPTT. OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT SUPRINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, VAISHALI AT HAZIPUR 5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, MAHUA, DISTT. - VAISHALI AT HAZIPUR 6. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, MAHUA, DISTT. - VAISHALI AT HAZIPUR 7. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, VAISHALI, DISTT. - VAISHALI AT HAZIPUR 8. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, VAISHALI AT HAZIPUR 9. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, GORAUL, DISTT. - VAISHALI AT HAZIPUR 10. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, GORAUL, DISTT. - VAISHALI AT HAZIPUR 11. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, LALGANJ, DISTT. - VAISHALI AT HAZIPUR 12. THE BLOCK EDUCATION AND EXTENSION OFFICER, LALGANJ, DISTT.- VAISHALI AT HAZIPUR 13. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, LAXMI NARAYANPUR, BLOCK MAHUA, DISTT.- VAISHALI AT HAZIPUR------- -----------------------------------RESPONDENTS ----------- 3 25.1.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The basis for issuance of the order of removal passed against the petitioner contained in annexure-1 series does not seem to be erroneous as such because if 2006 Rules relating to employment of teachers in the State of Bihar talks of two years training to be obtained by a candidate for being eligible for appointment then one year training may not be enough for these petitioners to be retained in service even though they could have been engaged initially on some kind of mistaken understanding of - 2 - the Rules. The stand of the State is that so long as the rules stay and the requirements laid down therein are not fulfilled, no person has a right to claim or demand continuance in service in absence of requisite qualification in this regard. This Court is not convinced about the submission made by learned Senior counsel that the petitioners should be sent on training for yet another year and given a chance to continue in service. The question is not of obtaining training post appointment since the rule talks of pre-appointment training of two years. However on a very limited or technical issue having been raised by the petitioners that there is violation of rules of natural justice as they have not been given opportunity to be heard before passing of the impugned order, interference is being made with the impugned order but not with the contents or the reasons thereof. The petitioners should be given an opportunity to satisfy the respondents that the basis for their removal is supported by law. This writ application is dismissed with the above direction. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)