IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13375 of 2010 1. DINESH PASWAN S/O SRI BASUDEO PASWAN R/O VILL PARBIGHA, P.O.MANDACHH, P.S.HILSA, DISTT-NALANDA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE NALANDA AT BIHAR SHARIF 3. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION NALANDA AT BIHAR SHARIF 4. DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER NALANDA AT BIHAR SHARIF 5. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER NALANDA AT BIHAR SHARIF 6. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER HILSA, DISTT- NALANDA 7. MUKHIYA , KORAWAN GRAM PANCHAYAT WITHIN HILSA BLOCK, DISTT-NALANDA 8. DISTRICT TEACHERS EMPLOYMENT APPELLATE AUTHORITY NALANDA AT BIHAR SHARIF ----------- 2 18.11.2010 One Nirmla Kumari was selected as Shiksha Mitra . At that time the eligibility was matriculation . The appointment was for eleven months. When the appointment came to be renewed for a further period of eleven months, State Government raised the minimum eligibility to intermediate .There was a stipulation that those Shiksha Mitras, who were not of intermediate qualification, must obtain the same. The services of Nirmala Devi was terminated on the ground that she had failed to acquire intermediate qualification within the stipulated period. In the vacancy, so caused, the petitioner was then selected and appointed as Panchayat Teacher as by then the post of Shiksha Mitras was converted into Panchayat Teachers. Several disputes then arose and Shiksha Mitra were dismissed because of non achieving their intermediate qualification and pursuant to the 2 decision of this Court, ultimately the Government took a decision that all those Shiksha Mitras, who had been dismissed for not acquiring intermediate qualification upon their acquiring intermediate qualification to be appointed with retrospective effect. This was a policy decision taken in the year 2008 .It appear that in the mean time, in the year 2006 itself the said Nirmla Devi passed intermediate examination .Upon decision being taken by the government she applied for her reinstatement. It appears that as a consequence thereof payment of salary to the petitioner was immediately stopped .Petitioner approached the District Primary Teachers Appellate Authority for payment of her salary. The tribunal by its order, as contained in Annexure 14 to the writ petition, held that the petitioner had, in fact, suffered a dismissal and the consequence of the policy decision of the Government and the judgment of this Court is that of reinstating Nirmla Devi and thus the appeal was dismissed. Petitioner has challenged the order of the tribunal. Petitioner states that he was duly selected in a vacancy and as such could not have been dismissed .He secondly submits that before dismissal no notice was issued to him and as such the dismissal was bad . Firstly, the petitioner’s selection was on basis of vacancy caused by dismissal of Nirmala Devi. As a matter of State Policy all those dismissal orders were recalled with retrospective effect and as a consequence thereof that it would be deemed that Nirmala Devi was never dismissed . If that being so, then there it would be that there was no vacancy , the right of the petitioner though was not strictly akin to a contingent 3 right Nirmala Devi has to be reinstated and for that the petitioner who occupied her past has to make way. So far as, the second submission is concerned ,in my view, principle of natural justice is not an unruly horse.It has its own limitation .One of the limitations has culled out in by the Apex Court in the decision of S.L.Kapoor –v- Jagmohan & ors. since reported in AIR 1981 SC 136 as under: “ Where on the admitted or indisputable facts only one conclusion is possible and under the law only one penalty is permissible, the Court may not issue its writ to compel the observance of natural justice, not because it is not necessary to observe natural justice but because Courts do not issue futile writs.” Here, it is undisputed that petitioner was occupied the place vacated by Nirmala Devi who had to be bright back the only consequence was by eliminating the petitioner .The principle of natural justice would serve no purpose as petitioner is not being punished but being removed as a matter of adjustment. However, if there is any available vacancy in the concerned Panchayat of Panchayats Teacher then the Panchayat retain the services of the petitioner in that vacancy post because in the facts, as noted above, the petitioner not being at fault and having worked for almost four years if seat is available, it may not be fair to dispense with his service . I may also observe that for the period during which the petitioner has worked would be paid his due remuneration .In 4 respect of both these matters the petitioner would be present, which would be decided by the concerned Panchayat within a period of one month and the responsibility whereof would be on the Mukhiya concerned. With the aforesaid observations and directions the writ petition stands disposed of. Namita ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)