IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17800 of 2010 1. ANNU KUMARI W/O SRI RAJESH THAKUR R/O VILL.- BAHORI, P.O.- BHAN BHORAHAN, P.S.- MAHUA, DISTT.- VAISHALI, PRESENTLY WORKING AS BLOCK TEACHER GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL, AKHTIYARPUR UNDER MAHUA BLOCK, DISTT.- VAISHALI-------------------PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR 3. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR 4. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, MAHUA, P.O. & P.S.- MAHUA, DISTT.- VAISHALI 5. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, MAHUA, P.O. & P.S.- MAHUA, DISTT.- VAISHALI 6. THE HEADMASTER, GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL AKHTIYARPUR, P.S. - MAHUA, DISTT.- VAISHALI- ---RESPONDENTS ----------- For the petitioner :M/S Mahendra Thakur Ujjawal Kumar Mishra, Advocates For the State :Mr.Rakesh Kumar Shrivastava,AC to G.P.4 ------- 4. 27.6.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner seeks direction on the respondent authorities to pay her salary since April, 2009 till date. The petitioner applied for and was appointed on the post of Prakhand Shikshak by letter dated 16.12.2006 and gave joining in Government Middle School, Akhtiyarpur Block Mahua, District Vaishali on 19.12.2006 and claims to be working on the said post as Prakhand Teacher since then. It is the further stand of the petitioner that she got her 2 salary till 31.3.2009 and thereafter the same was stopped without intimating any reason. The petitioner approached the authorities but since no action was taken by them she has come to this Court. In the counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents the stand has been taken that the appointment of the petitioner was against the policy of the State Government and was ab initio illegal and void. It is stated that the degree of Prathama obtained by the petitioner from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad is not recognized by the State Government and accordingly letter dated 12.8.2010 was issued by the District Superintendent of Education, Vaishali to all the Block Education Officers to cancel the appointments of all panchayat teachers who have obtained the degree from the said institution. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is supported by a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of the State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Poonam Sharma & Ors. : 2009(3) PLJR 54, in which it was held that Prathama degree issued by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan (Hindi University), Allahabad was recognized till 31.12.1987 by the State Government. It is 3 the undisputed case that the petitioner had obtained the Prathama degree from the said institution on 10.11.1986. It is thus submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that on the basis of the said Division Bench decision the petitioner’s appointment cannot be held to be illegal or invalid and she is entitled to salary. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that another Division Bench of this Court in the case of the State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Mamta Kumari & Ors. : 2010(4) PLJR 318 has held that the qualification of Madhyama issued by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad and the said institution itself was never recognized by the State of Bihar. The decision in Poonam Sharma’s case has been referred in the said decision and sought to be ignored to referring to another decision and it has been held in paragraph-15 of the said judgment that the reference in the said decision the name of the institution was Hindi Sahitya Sammelan (Hindi University), Allahabad and not Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad mentioned in the certificates of the respondent-writ petitioners in the L.P.A. 4 In the present case the certificate of the petitioner as annexed in the counter affidavit of the respondents itself has clearly been issued by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad (Hindi University) which institution has been admittedly clearly mentioned in the Bihar Education Code and other Circulars of the State Government. However, a very important aspect of the matter has been overlooked while referring to the question of the equivalence of the said qualification of Prathama to Madhyama or not in the case of appointment of teachers. In this regard it may be useful to quote Article 358 of Bihar Education Code : “358. Recognition of certificates from National Universities.- Examinations conducted by National Universities enumerated in the following table should be treated as equivalent to the degree granted by a recognized University mentioned opposite each in column-III and that candidates who have passed any of examinations mentioned in column-I upto the end of the year 1965 or year mentioned against their names should be tested as eligible for appointment to a post of service under Government (except to a post of teacher, in case of teachers valid for promotion only) for which success at any of the corresponding examination of a recognized University is laid down as qualification for appointment to that post or service……..” 5 It is evident from a reading of the aforesaid provision that even if it is accepted that Prathama qualification issued by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad till 31.12.1987 was equivalent to Matriculation till 31.12.1987 but in terms of Article 358 of the Bihar Education Code a candidate having passed the said examination was to be treated as eligible for appointment to a post or service under Government but not to a post of teacher and in the case of teachers it was valid for promotion only. That being the legal position, the said qualification cannot be considered as a valid qualification for the purpose of appointment as teacher to which post the petitioner has been appointed. In that view of the matter, this Court is in agreement with the stand of the respondent State that the petitioner did not possess a valid qualification for the purpose of appointment as a Panchayat Teacher. The writ application is thus devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. However, it will not be open to the authorities of the State to make any recovery from the salaries already paid to the petitioner. Spal/ (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.)