IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.W.J.C. No.7797 of 2009 Sunil Kumar, S/O Sri Shivjee Prasad, Resident of village and Post Bahadurpur, P.S. Samastipur (Town) district Samastipur .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna 3. The Director, State Council of Education, Research and Training, Bihar, Patna 4. The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna 5. The District Superintendent of Education, Samastipur 6. The Block Development Officer, Ujiyarpur, Samastipur 7. The Block Education and Extension Officer, Ujiyarpur district Samastipur 8. The Panchayat Secretary, Bhagwanpur Desua Panchayat, Ujiyarppur, district Samastipur 9. The Mukhiya, Bhagwanpur Desua, Ujiyarppur, district Samastipur .. Respondents **** /2/ 14.07.2009 Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner was appointed as trained Panchayat Teacher on the basis of his Baby Training Certificate issued from Gandhi Hindi Vidyapeeth, Prayag, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh. The appointment was made in the year 2007. Subsequently, the Block Development Officer, Samastipur, issued Letter No. 266, dated 28.03.2008, directing the Mukhiya of the concerned Gram Panchayat to terminate the services of such teachers, who have been appointed as Panchayat Teacher on the basis of certificate issued from 2 Gandhi Hindi Vidyapeeth, Prayag, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh. The Mukhiya, in compliance of this direction, terminated petitioner’s service as Panchayat Teacher on the basis of order, dated 25.08.2008, contained in Letter No. 36. Petitioner’s case is that the certificate issued by Gandhi Hindi Vidyapeeth, Prayag, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh, was considered to be a certificate issued by a recognized institution. Several persons are working under the State and Central Governments on the basis of training certificate issued from this institution. It has also been stated that earlier similarly situated persons, appointed as Panchayat Teacher on the basis of certificate issued by same institution, were removed from service. They challenged the termination order by filing writ applications. Similar matters were considered and decided by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 10370 of 2008 and analogous cases. The impugned order of termination was quashed and petitioner of these writ application appointed as Panchayat Teachers are still continuing on their posts. 3. Respondents were not come out with this case that petitioner was appointed by making misrepresentation, fraud or suppressing any facts relating to his qualification. His training certificate was duly considered and treated as 3 valid degree for teachers training. At the relevant time, there was no direction of the State Government to consider the certificate for teachers training issued by Gandhi Hindi Vidyapeeth, Prayag, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh, as a certificate issued from an unrecognized institution. Petitioner after being appointed and confirmed, can not be terminated from his service simply on the basis of a direction unless it is case of misrepresentation or fraud. 4. Counsel appearing for the State was asked to inform this Court whether the order passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 10370 of 2008 and analogous cases have been questioned in appeal before the Division Bench or this order has been set aside. The counsel appearing for the State having no instruction is unable to inform the Court. The order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 10370 of 2008 and analogous cases is still valid order. In case similarly situated persons have been allowed the benefit of remaining in service on account of their appointment on the basis of Baby Training Certificate issued from Gandhi Hindi Vidyapeeth, Prayag, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh, petitioner can not be discriminated. 5. Accordingly, Letter No. 36, dated 25.08.2008, issued by the Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Raj, Bhagwanpur, 4 Desua, Ujiyarpur, Samastipur, is quashed. The respondent Mukhiya and the other concerned authorities are directed to reinstate the petitioner on his post forthwith, make payment of salary and other consequential benefits. The period for which he remained out of service on account of illegal order, should be treated as his period of service and, accordingly, arrears of salary should also be paid to the petitioner for this period. 6. With these observations and directions, this application is allowed. Cp:2/S.A. (Mridula Mishra, J.)