IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9263 of 2008 SUBODH KUMAR SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 28.08.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The controversy in this writ application is only one of facts to be ascertained from the original records to test the validity of the order passed by the statutory authority, the Block Development Officer. This Court, therefore, does not consider it proper to adjourn the matter for filing of a counter affidavit. The petitioner was appointed as Shiksha Mitra on 8.8.2005. Upon coming of the new statutory Rules governing appointment and service conditions of Primary School teachers in 2006, he acquired the status of permanent Panchayat Shikshak under Rule 20(3) of the said Rules. His services have been terminated on the premise that in the panel prepared he has wrongly been shown as Graduate and given marks on that basis when in fact he was only Intermediate. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner never represented himself to be a Graduate. He applied on basis of his Intermediate qualification. Reliance is placed at Annexure-5, the application form to submit that the petitioner never stated that he was a Graduate. Learned counsel also placed before this Court the original of Annexure-5 upon which there is receiving of Block Development Officer, the person to whom the document was addressed. From the impugned order at Annexure-6, it appears that in the final selection list prepared, the petitioner has been classified as a - 2 - Graduate and given marks on that basis. All that is now required to be done is to verify from the original merit list as to the qualification of the petitioner mentioned therein to determine the validity of the impugned order of termination. Let the District Magistrate, Vaishali examine the original records himself and satisfy himself on facts and pass appropriate orders accordingly. In the event, he finds that the petitioner has been described as a Graduate in the selection list, the impugned order shall require no modification and the writ application shall be deemed to have been dismissed. However, if from the original records he finds that the petitioner has not been described as a Graduate, this Court requires the District Magistrate to proceed appropriately in the matter by directing reinstatement of the petitioner. Let this exercise be done by the District Magistrate and appropriate orders passed within a maximum period of four weeks from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)