IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2462 of 2009 Pankaj Kumar Mukul, son of Sri Ashwini Kumar Singh, Resident of Village + P.O. – Karanga, P.S. – Shambhuganj, District – Banka ……………. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. The Joint Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Banka, District – Banka 5. The Block Development Officer of Block Shambhuganj, District – Banka 6. The Panchayat Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, Parmanandpur, Block Shambhuganj, P.S. – Shambhuganj, District – Banka 7. The Gram Panchayat Parmanandpur, P.S. – Shambhuganj, District – Banka through its Mukhiya 8. Subodh Kumar, son of Shri Bechan Prasad, Resident of Village – Itahari, P.S. – Ram Nagar, District – Munger, at present Panchayat Sikshak in Primary School, Hastinapur, P.S. – Shambhuganj, District – Banka ………….. Respondents ---------------------------------- with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16164 of 2009 Sudhir Kumar S/O Sri Babu Nand Bhindwar R/O Vill.- Purani, P.S.- Birpur, Distt.- Supaul ……………… Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna 4. District Magistrate, Supaul 5. District Superintendent Of Education, Supaul 6. Block Development Officer, Basantpur, Distt.- Supaul 7. Block Education Extension Officer, Basantpur, Supaul 8. Panchayat Secretary Parmanandpur Gram Panchayat, Distt.- Supaul 9. Headmaster, Primary School, Tirhutia Tola, Parmanandpur, Distt.- Supaul …………….. Respondents ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Sr. Advocate Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate Mr, Ritesh Kumar, Advocate For the State: Mr. Ajay Behari Sinha, SC-19 Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, AC to SC-19 Mr. Abhay Shankar Jha, SC-14 ******************* 10. 21.10.2011 Heard learned counsels for the petitioners and the counsel appearing for the State. 2 Prayer of the petitioners in these Writ Applications is for quashing of their termination orders, issued by the respective Respondents in their cases. Petitioners’ appointment on the post of Panchayat Teacher have been cancelled on the basis of direction, issued by the State Government to reinstate those Panchayat Teachers, who were earlier terminated from the post of Panchayat Teachers on the ground, that they did not possess requisite qualification for being appointed on the post, since they have obtained their Intermediate degree in vocational course. This is not in dispute that prior to petitioners’ appointment on their respective post of Panchayat Teachers, the private respondents had been appointed, but they were terminated on the ground that they have obtained their Intermediate degree in vocational course and as per Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2008, the Intermediate degree in vocational course is not the requisite qualification for being appointed on the post. The vacancies created on account of their termination were re-advertised. Petitioners applied for the post and following all procedures, as provided under the Rules, they have 3 been appointed. The Teachers, who were earlier appointed and terminated, challenged their termination Orders by filing Writ Applications before the High Court on the ground that the issue relating go Intermediate degree in vocational course is requisite qualification for appointment and equivalent to Intermediate degree in general subjects, already been settled and the ground on which they have been terminated from their post, being non-existent ground, their appointment Orders are illegal and fit to be quashed. Writ Applications filed by those wit petitioners were allowed in C.W.J.C. No. 10203 of 2007 and analogous cases. The direction was issued to the Respondent Authorities to reinstate them. In compliance of the Order, passed in the Writ Application, the State Government took a decision for reinstating such terminated Panchayat Teachers and the present writ petitioners, who had legally been appointed, their appointment was cancelled without any rhyme and reason and without any notice to show-cause. Counsel for the petitioner submits that, admittedly, there is no illegality in the appointment of the petitioners, they were appointed against the post, which was vacant at the relevant time, 4 following all procedures, as provided under the Rules. If, subsequently, the State Government has decided to reinstate earlier terminated Panchayat Teachers, there was no reason for terminating the petitioners. It could have been done by the State Government in the similar manner by creating additional posts as the State Government had done in case of 441 Panchayat Teachers having Maulvi degree, appointed against general post, in the district of Purnea. The State Government, in order to retain such illegally appointed teacher, created equivalent number of posts for their absorption. So far case of these petitioners is concerned it is on better footing. There is no illegality in their appointment, but in order to implement the direction of the Writ Court, the State Government decided to reinstate earlier terminated Panchayat Teachers, completely overlook fate of these petitioners and similarly situated persons, who had been appointed legally, following all procedures, as provided under the Rule. In the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the State, there is no other statement except that the Intermediate degree in vocational course was held to be a requisite qualification for being appointed as 5 Panchayat Teacher as per the judicial Order, as such earlier terminated Panchayat Teachers, have been appointed. I find that the termination of the earlier appointed Teachers, who had Intermediate degree in vocational course was also illegal, as such their reinstatement as per the Judicial Order was also essential and mandatory for the Respondent State. But so far these petitioners are concerned their appointment could not have been cancelled, as there was no illegality in their appointment. At the time they were appointed, there were vacancies on the post. Petitioners are duly qualified and following all procedures and Rules, they have been appointed. In this circumstance, the Respondent State and its authority had no other option than to reinstate / reappoint the petitioners on vacant post and allow them the benefit which can be allowed to them legally. The Order, reappointing / reinstating the petitioners must be passed within three months from the date of production / communication of this Order. In case any of the petitioners is still continuing, they will be allowed benefit of continuation of service. SKM (Mridula Mishra, J.)