IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1192 of 2010 ROSHILA DEVI W/O UPENDRA KUMAR RAM AT + P.O.- BACRI, P.S.- PIRO, DISTT.- BHOJPUR. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR (PRIMARY EDUCATION) GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BHOJPUR (ARA) 5. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION BHOJPUR, ARA 6. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER PIRO, P.O.- PIRO, P.S.- PIRO, DISTT.- BHOJPUR 7. THE MUKHIYA GRAM PANCHAYAT BACHRI P.O.- BACHRI, P.S.- PIRO, DISTT.- BHOJPUR 8. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY GRAM PANCHAYAT BACHRI P.O.- BACHRI, P.S.- PIRO, DISTT.- BHOJPUR. ----------- 02 24.06.2010 The petitioner was recruited in August 2005 to the post of Siksha Mitra. Petitioner had passed intermediate examination though with less than 45% marks and consequently was a matriculate as well. There existed government circular which said that those Siksha Mitra who were matriculate must pass intermediate examination with more than 45% marks for their contract of employment renewed. Petitioner was already an intermediate pass teacher. Consequently, in 2006 the services of Siksha Mitra were absorbed and converted into Panchayat Teachers and government directed that those Panchayat Teachers who did not have 45% marks at intermediate level their services were to be terminated. Apparently, pursuant to the said decision Annexure-2 was passed, terminating the services of the petitioner and, the same was communicated to the petitioner vide memo - 2 - no.03 dated 15.12.2007. Similar terminations were made, which were subject matters of challenge before this Court in different writ petitions. This Court apparently held that providing for eligibility criteria at enhanced level would apply prospectively and not to people already in employment. This laid to the government re-considering the matter and the State Government in the Department of Human Resources resolved which resolution was duly notified being resolution dated 04.07.2008. That all teachers who had been duly recruited prior to 2006 and, had not passed intermediate with 45% or more marks, would not be dismissed and, if dismissed, would be taken back in service and their service deemed to be continuing. This resolution is Annexure-3 to the writ petition. Petitioner on coming to know of the said resolution of the State Government made several representations to the authorities for reinstating her without response. Having heard the parties, in my view, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the writ petition pending, especially in view of the facts which are not in dispute. The fact being that the petitioner was recruited on basis of matriculation, being the criteria, and the petitioner has already passed intermediate examination though less than 45%. In view of the latest government resolution, petitioner’s services could not have been dispensed with and already dispensed with, petitioner had been taken back. - 3 - Considering the facts, I have no option but to allow the writ petition and set aside the letter of termination of service of petitioner. I also direct the respondents to immediately take back the petitioner in service with consequential benefits, as if, the termination order has never been issued. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. Trivedi (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)