IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2270 of 2010 1. NUTAN KUMARI D/O SRI SATYA NARAYAN PRASAD R/O VILL AND POST- CHOWK SARMASTPUR VIA- CHANDANPATTI, P.S- SAKRA, BLOCK-SAKRA, DISTT- MUZAFFARPUR 2. MOH.AFZAL IMAM S/O MOHMADD HASAN R/O VILL MAJHAULIA, POST- CHANDANPATTI, P.S- SAKRA, BLOCK-SAKRA, DISTT- MUZAFFARPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMET DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR,PATNA 2. DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MUZAFFARPUR 4. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, MUZAFFARPUR 5. BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, SAKRA, MUZAFFARPUR 6. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SAKRA, MUZAFFARPUR 7. PANCHAYAT SACHIV PANCHAYAT SAKRA VAJID, BLOCK-SAKRA, MUZAFFARPUR ----------- 2 9.8.2010 Heard the parties and with their consent this application is being disposed of at this stage itself. There is no factual controversy. It appears that pursuant to the selection process for selection of Panchayat Teachers in relation to Sakara Vajid Panchayat in the district of Muzaffarpur, one Manisha Kumari and Suman Kumar were selected as Panchayat Teachers on the strength of Madhyama (Visharad) from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad, same to be equivalent to the Intermediate . Subsequently in view of the decision of the State Government that Madhyama (Visharad) degree granted by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad is not 2 validly equivalent to Intermediate and not recognized, as such the appointment of the said two persons were cancelled and in their place the next in the panel being the two petitioners were appointed. Petitioners joined and were working. Then came the judgment of this Court in the case of Mamta Kumari –v- The State of Bihar & ors. being CWJC No. 10748 of 2008, delivered on 7.4.2009 in which this Court held that the decision of the State Government not to recognize the degree from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad could only be effective prospectively i.e. with effect from 20.11.2008 and not retrospectively as those two persons, namely, Manisha Kumari and Suman Kumar had obtained their degrees prior to the said date. As a corollary they would be valid on this principle. The authority took the two of them back in service terminating the services of the petitioners. It appears that as against the case of Mamta Kumari (supra),State preferred L.P.A being L.P.A No. 28 of 2010 along with several similar L.P.As, which was taken up and heard by a Division Bench of this Court. They were all allowed by judgment and order dated 28.4.2010. The judgment of this Court in the case of Mamta Kuamri (supra) was set aside and the Division Bench held that Madhyama (Visharad) from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad had no validity or equivalent in Bihar. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said two persons Manisha Kumari and Suman Kumar were taken 3 back in service on the strength of the judgment of Mamta Kumari, which judgment has been over-ruled and as such the appointment of the said Manisha Kumari and Suman Kumar has now again become illegal if not valid. He further submits that the District Superintendent of Education, Muzaffarpur has already issued a communication on 7.6.2010 to terminate the appointment of all persons, who were earlier appointed on basis of degree granted from Hindi Sahaitya Sammelan, Allahabad. Inevitable consequence that the said Manisha Kumari and Suman Kumar would be terminated if not already terminated. Petitioners thus want that they should accordingly be re-instated. Having considered the matter, in my view, the petitioners were selected at the first instance on the vacancies caused by removal of Manisha Kumari and Suman Kumar being next in the merit list. Their appointments having been found illegal, the similar situation should apply even now on parity of reasons. I, therefore, direct that in case Manisha Kumari and Suman Kumar are terminated on the ground of being ineligible then the vacancies, so caused, would be filled up by the petitioners, who had been earlier removed to make way for re- instatement of those two persons. However, petitioners would not be entitled to any wages for the period for which they have not worked. In other words, petitioners would be entitled to wages for the entire period for which they have worked. 4 With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ application stands disposed of. singh ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)