IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.17705 of 2008 ===================================================== Pratibha Kumari , daughter of Sri Prabhu Nath Mishra, resident of village- Pidiya, P.O.-Akaunee, P.S.-Dumaron, District-Buxar .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through its Principal Secretary, department of Human Resources Development, Government of Bihar, Vikash Bhawan, Patna. 2. The Principal Secretary, department of Human Resources Development, Government of Bihar, Vikash Bhawan, Patna. 3. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Vikash Bhawan, Patna 4. The Director, Mass Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. .... .... Respondents ===================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Lalit Kishore, A.A.G. 1, Mr. Vikash Kumar, A.C. to A.A.G.1 ===================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL JUDGMENT 5th May 2011 (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) The petitioner has passed Up-Shastri examination considered equivalent to Intermediate examination. She has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the constitutional validity of the Government Notification dated 25th August 2008 particularly, Rule 4 of Patna High Court CWJC No.17705 of 2008 (3) dt.05-05-2011 2 the Bihar Panchayat Prathmik Shikshak (Appointment and Service Condition) (Amendment) Rules, 2008. In so far as the qualifications of “Maulvi” and “Up-Sastri” have been excluded from the required qualification for appointment as Panchayat Teacher. According to the petitioner the qualification of “Up-Sastri” is considered equivalent to Intermediate examination. Prior to the impugned amendment, the candidates possessing the said qualification were considered eligible for appointment as Panchayat Teacher. By the impugned amendment because of specific exclusion of the said qualifications of “Maulvi” and “Up-Shastri” the petitioner and such others are deprived of the opportunity of appointment as Panchayat Teacher. The question of validity of the impugned amendment has been decided by a Bench of this Court in the matter of Parvez Alam & Ors. versus the State of Bihar & Ors. [2009(2)PLJR 213]. The Bench of this Court has rejected the contention raised by the writ petitioners. It is held “We are of the opinion that the offending rule does not suffer from any arbitrariness or offends any of the Constitutional provision and therefore the challenge Patna High Court CWJC No.17705 of 2008 (3) dt.05-05-2011 3 made to it fails”. We follow suit. The petition is dismissed. The parties will bear there own cost. Bibhash ( R.M. Doshit, CJ.) (Jyoti Saran, J.)