IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1605 of 2009 MANITA KUMARI, D/O SRI RAM NARAYAN YADAV, W/O SHRI DIPAK KUMAR, R/O VILLAGE AND P.O.-HULAS, VIA AND P.S.-RAGHOPUR AND DISTRICT-SUPAUL (BIHAR). …………………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SUPAUL. 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, SUPAUL. 5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, RAHGOPUR BLOCK AND P.S.-RAGHOPUR, DISTRICT-SUPAUL. 6. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, RAGHOPUR BLOCK AND P.S.-RAGHOPUR, DISTRICT- SUPAUL. 7. THE MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT CHAMPANAGAR, VILLAGE-CHAMPANAGAR, P.O.-HULAS, BLOCK AND P.S.-RAGHOPUR, DISTRICT-SUPAUL. 8. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT, CHAMPANAGAR, P.O.-HULAS, DISTRICT-SUPAUL BLOCK AND P.S.-RAGHOPUR (SUPAUL). ………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 3 29.10.2010 Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make correction of the date of the impugned letter (Annexure-9) in sub- paragraph 2 of paragraph 1 in course of the day. Petitioner in this writ application has prayed for quashing of the order of the Panchayat Secretary dated 10.04.2008, as contained in Annexure-9, by which her services have been terminated in the light of Department’s letter no. 4240 dated 2 15.11.2007. She has also prayed for quashing of the said letter dated 4240 dated 15.11.2007, as contained in Annexure-8, by which it has been communicated that the Degree of Up-shastri shall not be treated as equivalent to Intermediate Degree for appointment of Panchayat Shikshak. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a judgment of a Bench of this Court passed in CWJC No.12456 of 2008 dated 20.11.2008 in which the validity of the said letter of the Department dated 15.11.2007 fell for consideration. This Court considered the issue and held the said letter as bad in law and quashed the same. Learned counsel submits that since the said letter already stands quashed, cancellation of appointment of the petitioner by the impugned Annexure-9 on that basis is also bad. However, learned counsel for the State has drawn the attention of this Court to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Parvez Alam Vs. State of Bihar and other analogous cases (reported in 2009 (2) PLJR 213). He submits that the Division Bench has now held such amendment in the 3 rules, disqualifying persons/candidates holding Up-shastri/Maulvi degree from consideration on account of not having the Degree of Up-shastri/Maulvi equivalent to Intermediate degree, as valid. After going through the judgment of the Division Bench, this Court finds that the Division Bench has categorically held that the prescribing qualification for appointment falls within the domain of the appointing authority, and, if it has amended the rules excluding the degree of Up-shastri/Maulvi as equivalent to Intermediate, no fault can be found with the same. In view of this finding of the Division Bench, the said judgment of the learned Single Judge passed in said CWJC No.12456 of 2008 dated 20.11.2008 in the case of Ribha Rani and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others cannot be held as a good law and treated as binding precedence. The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)