IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16097 of 2010 1. MINTU KUMARI D/O SRI YOGENDRA PANDEY, W/O SRI HARISHCHANDRA SINGH PRESENTLY R/O VILL.- P.O.- BHATHAHI, BLOCK + P.S.- JANJHAHA, DISTT.- VAISHALI, TERMINATED BLOCK TEACHER FROM UPGRADED MIDDLE SCHOOL, MILKI BLOCK JANDAHA, P.S.- JANDAHA, DISTT.- VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY EDUCATION GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION (D.S.E.), VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR 5. THE DISTRICT TEACHER'S EMPLOYMENT APPELLATE AUTHORITY VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR THROUGH ITS MEMBER 6. THE AREA EDUCATION OFFICER, JANDAHA, DISTT.- VAISHALI AT HAZIPUR 7. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER JANDAHA, DISTT.- VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR 8. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENTION OFFICER JANDAHA BLOCK, P.S.- JANDAHA, DISTT.- VAISHALI AT HAZIPUR 9. THE HEAD MASTER, UPGRADED MIDDLE SCHOOL, MILKI JANDAHA, DISTT.- VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR ----------- For the petitioner: M/S. Jay Prakash Sharma and Kumar Kaushik. For the State: S C 6. ------ 02. 05.05.2011 Primary challenge in the present writ application is to the order passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Vaishali, by virtue of this order the tribunal has refused to interfere with the order of termination/removal of the petitioner from the post of a Panchayat teacher. Petitioner was appointed as a Panchayat teacher on the basis of one year’s degree of training, which was earlier obtained, maybe from a recognized institute. But subsequently, based on the provisions of 2006 Teachers 2 Employment Rules notified by the State Government, the minimum requirement or eligibility for such appointment was laid down as two years of training. It was under these circumstances that the appointing authority on the intervention of the State authorities had to cancel the appointment of the petitioner. Same fact has been upheld by the appellate authority in his order dated 26.2.2010, which is Annexure-6. Submission of the counsel for the petitioner that earlier one year training used to be treated at par with two years training and therefore to that extent exemption ought to be granted taking the said fact and status of the degree into consideration . The Court fails to understand as to why such a one year training can be linked with two years training especially if the rule does not talk of any equivalence. In absence of the basic eligibility petitioner’s appointment itself was per say illegal. If the authority realized such a mistake having been committed by the Panchayat, steps had to be taken to redeem it and it cannot be termed that action of respondents is illegal. The reasoning and rationale of the appellate authority to that extent cannot be faulted and no interference is required. However, so far as claim of the petitioner that she has not been paid remuneration for the period July, 2009 to 16.9.2009 i.e. the date of termination, it goes without saying that 3 petitioner would be entitled to claim her remuneration for that period since she has worked. Writ is dismissed but with the above direction for payment. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)