IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA --------- Letters Patent Appeal No.229 of 2011 ------ Appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 21-12- 2010 passed by a Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4553 of 2010. ---------- Jitendra Kumar, son of Sri Shivjee Roy, resident of Village- Bahuara, P.O. Krishanwara, P.S. Patepur, District- Vaishali...................................... Appellant Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Primary Education, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar,Patna. 4. The District Magistrate, Vaishali at Hazipur 5. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Vaishali at Hazipur 6. The District Superintendent of Education,Vaishali at Hajipur 7. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Mahua, Distt-Vaishali. 8. The Block Development Officer, Patepur, Vaishali 9. The Block Education Extension Officer, Patepur, Vaishali. 10. The Headmaster, Government Primary School, Bahuara, Block - Patepur, District- Vaishali 11. The Headmaster, Government Middle School, Krishnawara, Block- Patepur, Distt. Vaishali 12. Smt. Sudha Kumari, D/o Ram Eshwar Singh,R/O Village- Krishnawara, Gram Panchayat-Bahuara, Block- Patepur, District- Vaishali at Hazipur, at present posted as Incharge Headmistress, Govt. Middle School, Krishnawara, Block- Patepur,Vaishali 13. Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj- Bahuara, Block- Patepur, District- Vaishali 14. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj- Bahuara, Block- Patepur, District- Vaishali 15. Rakesh Rai, son of Jinis Lal Rai, R/o Village- Krishnawara, P.S. Patepur, District- Vaishali 16. The District Teachers Employment Appellate 2 Tribunal Vaishali through its Member.....Respondents ---------- For the Appellant :- Mr. Basant Kumar Chaudhary, Sr Advocate Mr. Pramod Mishra-Advocate For the State Mr. Awanish Nandan Sinha,GP-II Mr. Subhankar Sharma,AC to GP-II For Rsespt-15 Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar,Advocate ---------- 6 17-10-2011 Heard the parties. The writ court has accepted the decision contained in annexure 22 to the writ petition made by the appellate authority and has found no legal infirmity requiring interference. We also find merit in the submission advanced on behalf of State that as a policy decision the State Government revised its earlier decision requiring removal of Panchayat teachers if they did not have the required marks of 45% in the Intermedicate examination or if they did not have the decree of Intermediate. As a result of such policy decision those who showed that they have the necessary qualification as per the relaxed norms, were taken back into service. Such policy decision has been followed in the case of large number of teachers including private respondent Rakesh Rai. In fact this Court has allowed 3 several writ petitions where the authorities did not act as per the revised policy decision of the State Government and did not reinstate the affected Panchayat teachers. In the facts of the case no relief can be granted to the appellant- writ petitioner. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Naresh ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) ( Shivaji Pandey,J)