IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10370 of 2008 BINOD KUMAR & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.18832 of 2008 ARVIND KUMAR 'AMAR' Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS CWJC No.13142 of 2008 ABIJEET KUMAR SINGH & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioners:-Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh,Sr.Adv. For the State:- Standing Counsel No.V 4 1.4.2009 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the State. Petitioners are stated to be holders of baby teachers certificate from the Gandhi Hindi Vidyapith, Prayag, Allahabad in the sessions 1989-92 to 1993-95. In pursuance of an advertisement by the State Government they came to be appointed as Panchayat Teachers in different Schools of the Patepur Block, district Vaishali in November, 2006. They are aggrieved by the threatened termination of their service in pursuance of a general instruction dated 4.7.2008 issued by the District Education Officer, Vaishali with reference to a letter dated 19.6.2008 of the Human - 2 - Resources Department, Government of Bihar that according to the website of the University Grants Commission dated 1.11.2004, the Gandhi Hindi Vidyapith, Prayag, Allahabad was a fictitious institution. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that some petitioners are still working on their appointed posts. He further refers to another Government letter issued by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Saharsa referring to an order of this Court in CWJC No.1975 of 2007 that the Gandhi Hindi Vidhyapith,Prayag,Allahabad is a recognized institution and therefore persons holding qualification cannot be terminated till a final decision is taken by the Court in the matter. Learned Counsel for the State submits that he has instructions that the Government has taken a decision not to make appointment of candidates holding qualification from the Gandhi Hindi Vidyapith, Prayag, Allahabad. This finds reflection in the order dated 4.7.2008. Who were eligible for appointment and who were not eligible for appointment, what were the conditions of eligibility for appointment, what interpretation is to be given - 3 - to rules regulating the appointment are all matters to be considered and decided before commencing the process of selection and appointment. An old English adage is “think before you act.” The respondents appear to be believing in „acting first and thinking later‟. The petitioners had been appointed in November, 2006.They were sanguine that they had obtained appointment and employment. Their lives were on a track not only for themselves but to enable them to plan for the future of their children also. The respondents do not find any illegality in the process of selection or alleged any fraud on the part of the petitioner. What they seek to do is to start a de novo enquiry of the eligibility for appointment by an interpretation of the conditions and qualifications after the appointment has been made, virtually placing the cart before the horse. This too, nearly two years after the appointment has been made. The aforesaid discussion draws great sustenance from an order of this Court dated 21.5.2007 in CWJC No. 1387 of 2007 and analogous cases, inclusive of CWJC No. 1975 of 2007. A Bench of this Court on consideration of the matter with regard to the qualification from Gandhi Hindi - 4 - Vidyapith, Prayag, Allahabad for such appointment has held at paragraph 11 that the appointment of the writ petitioners would not be cancelled in absence of any fraud misrepresentation and opportunity of hearing. The general direction to cancel the appointment of all teachers holding qualification from Gandhi Hindi Vidyapith,Prayag, Allahabad was quashed. Learned Senior Counsel Shri Rajendra Prasad Singh, appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that he has instructions to state that the judgment of this Court in CWJC No. 1387 of 2007 and analogous cases has not been questioned in appeal before the Division Bench. Learned Counsel for the State submits that he has no instruction on this aspect of the matter. This Court proceeds on the assumption that the judgment of this Court in CWJC No. 1387 of 2007 has attained finality. If that be so, there is no occasion for this Court to record any different findings. The writ application stands disposed in the aforesaid terms restraining the respondents from interfering that the services of the petitioners. Those terminated on the - 5 - said ground, are directed to be reinstated. The writ application stands allowed. Needless to add that if the order of this Court in CWJC No. 1387 of 2007 and analogous cases is pending consideration in a L.P.A. before the Division Bench or is assailed hereinafter, this order shall necessarily subject to any order that may be passed by the Division Bench. (Navin Sinha,J.) A.Kumar