IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2399 of 2010 ====================================================== Bibi Nuzhat Bano & Ors. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus State Of Bihar & Ors. Mr. Anja .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== With Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13605 of 2009 ====================================================== 1. Bibi Nuzhat Bano W/O Of Md. Mehsullaque Vill.- Mij-Gehuwan, P.S.- Jalagardh, Distt.- Purnea 2. Bibi Akela Akhatar D/O Md. Daud Alam Vill.- Mij-Gehwan, P.S.- Jalalgardh, Distt.- Purnea 3. Nikhat Praveen D/O Md. Idris Ansari Vill.- Zeenatganj, P.S.- Kasba, Distt.- Purnea .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 2. The Special Secretary-Cum-Director Primary Education, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. The District Magistrate, Purnea Distt.- Purnea 4. The Regional Deputy Director Of Education Purnea 5. The District Superintendent Of Education, Purnea Distt.- Purnea 6. The Block Development Officer, Jalalgardh, Distt.- Purnea 7. The Block Education Extension Officer Jalalgardh Purnea 8. The Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Raj Dantsar Block- Jalalgardh, Distt.- Purnea 9. The Panchayat Secretary Gram Panchayat Raj Dantsar, Jalalgardh, Distt.- Purnea 10. The District Appellate Tribunal Purnia Through Its Member .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : (In MJC No.2399 of 2010) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rjeev Kumar Singh Mr. Md. Jubair Ansari For the Respondent/s : Mr. (Ga3) (In CWJC No.13605 of 2009) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh Mr. Alok Kumar Singh Mr. Mrityunjay Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. (Ga3) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. MRIDULA MISHRA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. MRIDULA MISHRA) Patna High Court MJC No.2399 of 2010 (9) dt.24-10-2011 2 / 5 2 09/ 24.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. Writ Application and the Contempt Application, bearing MJC No. 2399 of 2010 are being heard together, as contempt application has been filed by the petitioners due to non-compliance of the ad-interim order, dated 19.01.2010, passed in the Writ Application. The ad-interim relief allowed to the petitioners in the Writ Application was that till disposal of the Writ Application, petitioners if already continuing on the post of Panchayat Teacher, shall continue. Petitioners’ grievance was that despite this relief being allowed in their favour. Subsequently, they have been removed by the concerned authorities in contempt of the order passed in the Writ Application. The Writ Application had been filed by the petitioners for quashing of an order dated 12.08.2009 passed in Appeal No. 196 of 2009 by the District Teacher Appointment Appellate Tribunal, Purnea, rejecting the claim of the petitioners and to direct the authorities to allow them to continue on the post of Panchayat Teacher, despite the fact that having Maulvi degree, they were appointed against the general post. This prayer had been made by the Patna High Court MJC No.2399 of 2010 (9) dt.24-10-2011 3 / 5 3 petitioners in the light of the direction of the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Purnea, contained in letter no. 1296, dated 07.10.2007, whereby all DEO, DSE and SDEO of the District were directed not to remove those 441 Panchayat Teachers appointed against the general post, having Maulvi degree. Similar direction had also been issued by the Special Secretary-cum-Director, Primary Education, vide letter no. 234, dated 23.01.2008, whereby DSE, Purnea was directed not to disturb such Panchayat Teachers, who were appointed on the basis of Maulvi degree against general post. Petitioners’ grievance is that the District Teacher Appointment Appellate Tribunal rejected petitioners’ prayer completely ignoring this fact that the Special Secretary-cum-Director, Primary Education vide letter no. 234, dated 23.01.2008 had issued direction in respect of 441 such Teachers, who were appointed against general post having Maulvi degree. This means that persons, who were either continuing or illegally removed, all such appointed Panchayat Teachers, having Maulvi degree, were directed to be absorbed against the post they have been appointed illegally. But in order to absorb them similar number of posts were created by the State Government. Simply because the DSE, Patna High Court MJC No.2399 of 2010 (9) dt.24-10-2011 4 / 5 4 Purnea erroneously sent name of only 421 such appointed Teachers, this was not sufficient for ignoring the claim of petitioners as their cases were also similar to those 421 candidates appointed in a similar manner. The stand taken in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State is that since petitioners had already been terminated, before the list of such appointed Teachers were sent by the DSE to the Director, as such they have not been allowed similar relief. I find that such stand taken by the State Respondents is not legal or proper, because the Special Secretary-cum-Director, Primary Education vide letter no. 234, dated 23.01.2008 had issued direction to the DSE, Purnea for not removing any of such Teachers, who were appointed on the basis of Maulvi degree against the general post. The number of such Teachers admittedly was 441 and the same number of posts was also created for their absorption. In this circumstance, there was no reason for retaining only 421 such appointed Teachers and giving different treatment to others, whose names could not be sent erroneously. Since petitioners’ come in that category, as such they are also entitled for similar relief. The Respondents Patna High Court MJC No.2399 of 2010 (9) dt.24-10-2011 5 / 5 5 DSE, Purnea as well as the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Purnea and the Special Secretary-cum-Director, Primary Education, Bihar are directed to retain petitioners on the post, they were appointed and continue to discharge their duties for certain time. Counsel for the petitioners submits that some of the petitioners have continued on their post subsequent to the date when already the Special Director-cum-Director, Primary Education had issued direction to the DSE, Purnea for retaining them. This itself was a serious illegality committed by the Respondents. The order, passed by the District Teacher Appointment Appellate Tribunal, dated 12.08.2009 is quashed. The Respondents are department to retain petitioners on their posts, they were working. They will be deemed to be continuing on their post without any interruption or breakage as such will also be entitled for all consequential benefit. Accordingly, the MJC application is disposed of. DKS/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)