IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5863 of 2009 KUMARI KUSHI @ KUSHI KUMARI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2/ 12/05/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed on 25.12.2006 as a Panchayat Teacher in the Primary School, under Gram Panchayat Raj Rahiyar North, Block- Shivajee Nagar, district- Samastipur. By annexure-4 dated 17.4.2007 an enquiry was held on a complaint made with regard to alleged illegalities in appointment. Item No.3 of the enquiry report states that the petitioner was appointed based on her qualification from the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad. Directions had been issued by the Human Resources Development Department by a press communique that such appointments are to be terminated. The committee, therefore, recommended termination of her appointment when the impugned order dated 10.5.2007 has been issued. Reliance is placed on an order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.10748/08 disposed on 7.4.2009 in which a similar issue holding that appointments made prior to the date of the policy 2 decision of the State Government dated 20.11.2008, declining to accept the aforesaid qualifications as equivalent and valid for appointment cannot be made applicable retrospectively, but has to be prospective, came to be decided. Learned counsel for the State from the enquiry report at annexure-4 submits that the illegality in the appointment related to other issues also and was not confined to the issue of the qualification of the petitioner from the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad. This Court has gone through the enquiry report at Annexure-4. Paragraph-1 of the same deals with the issue of appointments of persons with lesser qualifications vis-à-vis certain complainants appointed. The name of the petitioner does not find consideration therein. Item No.2 of the enquiry report also relates to another issue and does not deal with the petitioner at all. Item No.3 is specific to the petitioner of her alleged lack of qualifications as being obtained from the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad. Learned counsel for the State does not dispute that if the petitioner is similarly situated and is covered by the order in C.W.J.C. No.10748/08, she is entitled to be accorded similar treatment. If the respondents propose to hold that the 3 petitioner is not similarly situated and is not entitled to the benefit of the same, they shall be obliged to pass a reasoned and speaking order setting out the grounds for their difference of opinion so that judicial review by this Court, if the occasion arises, if facilitated. Let such consideration by respondent No.2 be done expeditiously without any unnecessary delay. This writ application is, therefore, disposed in terms of C.W.J.C. No.10748/08. KC (Navin Sinha, J.)