IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1907 of 2009 ***** Shobha Kumari, W/o Sri Akhilesh Roy, Resident of Village-Chintamanpur, Post-Sarmastpur, Police Station-Paroo, District-Muzaffarpur. …. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through The Principal Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development, Bihar, Patna. 2. The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur. 3. The District Superintendent of Education, Muzaffarpur, District-Muzaffarpur. 4. The Block Education Extension Officer, Paroo, District-Muzaffarpur. 5. The Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Raj Chintamanpur at, Chintamanpur, P.S.-Paroo, District- Muzaffarpur. 6. The Head Master Madhya Vidyalaya, Mohamadpur and P.S.-Paroo, P.O.-Sarmastpur, District-Muzaffarpur. 7. The Panchayat Sachiv, Panchayat Raj Chintamanpur, at-Chintamanpur, P.O.-Sarmastpur, P.S.-Paroo, District-Muzaffarpur. …. …. Respondents ----------- 2. 9.2.2009. Vide communication dated 25.4.2008 contained in Annexure-8 the Panchayat Secretary, Panchayat Raj Chintamanpur, respondent no.7 has issued a direction to the petitioner to stop working as a Panchayat Shiksha Mitra, who was selected way back in the year 2005 on the ground that she did not have the requisite 45% marks in the intermediate examination in terms of a decision of the State Government taken in the year 2008. Petitioner, however, has brought on record a recent decision rendered in the case of Sujata Devi @ Sujata Kumari v. State of Bihar & Ors., C.W.J.C. No. 3572 of 2007dated 19.11.2008, wherein on an identical question the High Court by its decision has held that since at the initial point of appointment the minimum basic marks of 45% was not a criteria, therefore, a subsequent decision will not take away the benefit of appointment from a candidate. - 2 - Learned counsel for the petitioner points out, based on Annexure-11 that she has already filed an application before the District Superintendent of Education, Muzaffarpur pointing out these facts but nothing has been done on the issue. Keeping in view the decision which has already been rendered by the High Court in the case of Sujata Devi @ Sujata Kumari v. State of Bihar & Ors. the impugned Annexure-8 is quashed. Petitioner would be allowed to continue on the post, if there is no other impediment in law. The writ application is allowed. Pawan/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)