IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14860 of 2009 1. PANKAJ KUMAR S/O SRI HARINDRA PRASAD SINGH R/O VILL-AINWAN POST- SAIDABAD, BLOCK-KAKO PANCHAYAT-DAMUHA, P.S- KAKO, DISTT- JEHANABAD Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DINESH KUMAR PAL S/O SRI CHANDRADEEP PRASAD R/O VILL-CHANDWAPUR, P.S-KAKO, POST- DHANGAUV DISTT- JEHANABAD 3. SIRPAHCH GRAM KACHHARI DAMUHA BLOCK-KAKO, JEHANABAD 4. B.D.O. KAKO, JEHANABAD ----------- 2/ 20/11/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not assail the appointment of respondent No.2. The challenge in this case is confined to the legality of the termination of the petitioner alone. In pursuance of an advertisement and selection the petitioner came to be appointed as Sachiv, Gram Kutchery on 20.3.2008 and joined on 24/3/2008. The respondents ignoring their own instructions to treat Madhyama as equivalent to Matriculation ignored certain persons from consideration one of whom came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No.13905/07 when this Court held that the respondents could not ignore their own circulars and were bound to consider persons with Madhyama qualifications also for appointment. The fault lay with the respondents themselves and they seek to penalize the petitioner. In pursuance of the order of this Court the respondents have sought to make certain amendments in 2 the Rules with effect from 31.1.2008 and for which the statutory amendment in the rules has been made by a notification long months after the petitioner has joined and started discharge of his duties. Learned counsel for the State submits that the respondents have acted under the orders of this Court to consider candidates with qualification of Madhyama leading to the need for revision of the merit panel. The impugned order of termination dated 27.7.2009 does not refer to any ineligibility of the petitioner, illegality in his appointment, or otherwise finds fault with the validity of the appointment. If the petitioner was validly appointed long before the issuance of the statutory notification amending the rules with effect from 31.1.2008, the case of the petitioner clearly falls in the category of a completed transaction which the respondents cannot be allowed to reopen and especially when it is attributed to their own faults. This Court finds it difficult to sustain the impugned order of termination dated 27.7.2009 which is accordingly set aside. The writ application stands allowed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)