IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11798 of 2009 PUSHPA KUMARI, W/o Shri Prem Lal Sah, resident of village – Lucky Nandlal Pur, P.S. Kurhani, District – Muzaffarpur. ….. Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Human Resources and Development, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna. 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Muzaffarpur. 5. The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur. 6. The Block Development Officer, Kurhani, Muzaffarpur. 7. The Block Education Extension Officer, Kurhani, Muzaffarpur. 8. The Mukhiya, Kinaru Panchayat Kurhani, Muzaffarpur. 9. The Panchayat Secretary, Kinaru Panchayat, Kurhani, Muzaffarpur. ….. Respondents. With CWJC No.12053 of 2009 RANGILA KUMARI, Wife of Shri Virendra Kumar, resident of village – Papari, P.S. Sakara, District – Muzaffarpur. ….. Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna. 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Muzaffarpur. 5. The Block Development Officer, Sakara, Muzaffarpur. 6. The Block Education Extension Officer, Sakara, Muzaffarpur. 7. The Mukhia, Chandan Patti Panchayat, Sakara, Muzaffarpur. 8. The Panchayat Secretary, Chandanpatti, Panchayat, Sakara, Muzaffarpur. ….. Respondents. With CWJC No.12302 of 2009 VEENA KUMARI, D/o Shri Jagdisah Pd. Singh, resident of village – Papari, P.S. Sakara, District – Muzaffapur. ……… Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna. 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Muzaffarpur. 5. The Block Development Officer, Sakara, Muzaffarpur. 6. The Block Education Extension Officer, Sakara, Muzaffarpur. 7. The Mukhiya, Sirajabad Gram Panchayat, Sakara, Muzaffarpur. 8. The Panchayat Secretary, Sirajabad Panchayat, Sakara, Muzaffarpur. …. Respondents. With CWJC No.13390 of 2009 JULEE KUMARI, Daughter of Shri Om Prakash Gupta, resident of village – Sarmaspur, P.S. Sakara, District – Muzaffarpur. …. Petitioner. Versus - 2 - 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Human Resources and Development, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna. 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Muzaffarpur. 5. The Block Development Officer, Sakara, Muzaffarpur. 6. The Block Education Extension Officer, Sakara, Muzaffarpur. 7. The Mukhiya, Raghunathpur Donama Panchayat, Sakara, Muzaffarpur. 8. The Panchayat Secretary, Raghunathpur Donama Panchayat, Sakara, Muzaffarpur. ….. Respondents. ----------- 02/ 06.11.2009 Heard counsels appearing for the petitioners and the counsels appearing for the State. In all these cases the petitioners have challenged their termination of service as Panchayat teacher on the ground that they were appointed on the basis of their qualification of Madhyama Visharad from Hindi Sahiyta Sammelan, Allahabad treating it as equivalent to Intermediate. Petitioners have prayed for quashing of the press communiqué of the general notification published in the Dainik Hindi Jagaran on 28.3.2007 under the signature of the Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna, whereby a direction has been issued to the appointing authorities to cancel the appointments of all such persons, who were appointed considering their degree obtained from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad. Petitioners have also prayed for consequential order of termination issued under the - 3 - signatures of Panchayat Secretary and Mukhiya of the concerned Gram Panchayats, where the petitioners were selected and working as Panchayat teacher. Petitioners have prayed for similar relief in their cases as has been allowed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 10748 of 2008 (Mamta Kumari Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.). In this case also the appointment was made on the post of Panchayat Teacher under Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers Appointment and Service Conditions Rules, 2006. The petitioners were appointed considering their qualification of Madhyama Visharad obtained from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad, which was considered equivalent to Intermediate, but subsequently removed from service as per the direction and press communiqué. This Court had held that the employers in the matters of employment have liberty to select a proper person having requisite qualification, but once an employment is given and subsequently the qualifications are questioned, it cannot be allowed and the employer cannot be given free hand to issue termination orders in such cases. What I find that though the case of the petitioners are identical to the case of Mamta - 4 - Kumari and also that decision covers the case of the petitioners but only reason for not allowing the claim of the petitioners is the delay in filing writ applications. The petitioners have approached this Court after two years of the issuance of the termination orders. Except in C.W.J.C. No. 11798 of 2009 (Pushpa Kumari Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) no other petitioner had even represented their case before the competent authority. Within these two years delay there is possibility that the vacancies occurred on account of the petitioners’ termination might have been included in the selection process initiated under 2008 Rules. On account of the initiation of selection process, applications must have been invited and the several persons might have applied for those posts, since they were treated vacant. Considering this the writ applications are being disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the concerned Panchayat Secretary, Mukhiya and Block Education Extension Officers in their respective cases. The Panchayat Secretary and Mukhiya as well as other authorities will find out whether the posts, which were held - 5 - by the petitioners, have been included as vacant posts in the process of appointment of teachers in second phase under 2008 Rules. In case it has been done the petitioners may not get any relief as claimed. In case the situation is otherwise, i.e. the posts are still vacant and not included in the second phase of teachers selection process under 2008 Rules, then the termination orders issued in favour of the petitioners by the Mukhiya and Panchayat Secretary of their concerned Gram Panchayat is directed to be recalled and similar relief as provided to the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 10748 of 2008 (Mamta Kumari Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) shall be allowed to the petitioners. The petitioners will be also reinstated on their posts will all consequential benefits. DKS/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)