IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2633 of 2009 NIRMALA KUMARI, wife of Shri Awadhesh Pandey, resident of village and P.O. – Rampura, P.s. Singhwara, District – Darbhanga. ___________ Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR , through the Commissioner-cum- Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Principal Secretary, Primary Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Principal Secretary, Art, Culture and Youth Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Director (Primary Education) –cum-Joint Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. The District Superintendent of Education, Darbhanga. 6. The Block Education Extension Officer, Singhwara, District – Darbhanga. 7. The Headmaster, Middle School, Singhwara, District – Darbhanga. __________ Respondents For the petitioner: M/S. B. k. Choudhary, Sr. Advocate and Kripa Nand Jha. For the respondents : G P 13. ----------- 02. 27.02.2009 Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 19.11.2008 contained in Annexure-10 passed by the Block Education Extension Officer, Singhwara, in the district of Darbhanga. By virtue to this order the benefit of matric trained scale granted to the petitioner earlier has been withdrawn. Contention of the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner is that this order is not only in the teeth of various circulars of the State Government but also several decisions of the Court as well as decision rendered in a writ application when the petitioner had to approach the High Court earlier. It is also stated that the impugned order has been passed unilaterally without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as without applying ones mind to the state of affairs in this regard. The Court has been - 2 - taken through the various Government Circulars which are annexures 2 and 4 as well as some of the decisions which have been rendered by the High Court which are annexure 7 series. The Court is also mindful of the fact that by way of annexure 9 when benefit was given to the petitioner, annexure-8 had come to be passed by the then District Superintendent of Education way back in the year 1995 and by a stroke of pen same benefit has been withdrawn without giving any reasoning which can be termed as cogent and are in conflict with circulars of the State Government as well as judicial orders in this regard. Learned counsel for the State, however, submits that decision has been taken keeping in mind the state of affairs with regard to the benefit which had been given to the petitioner when she is only a physical trained teacher. Keeping the entirety of the situation the Court comes to a considered opinion that annexure 10 has been issued by respondent no.6 without applying his mind to the laid down circulars as well as the decisions in the matter. The petitioner has made out a case for interference. Annexure-10 is quashed and the writ application is allowed. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)