IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.477 of 2010 1. ANJANA KUMARI W/O AWADHESH KUMAR MISHRA, R/O VILL SHYAM SIDHAPT, P.S. BABU BARHI, DISTT- MADHUBANI. ------------------Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DISTRICT TEACHERS EMPLOYMENT APPELLATE AUTHORITY MADHUBANI THROUGH ITS MEMBER. 3. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE MADHUBANI. 4. DISTRICT SUPERINENDENT OF EDUCATION- CUM- DISTRICT PROGRAMME CO- ORDINATION OFFICER, SARVA SHIKSHA ABHIYAN, MADHUBANI. 5. BLOCK DEVELOPEMENT OFFICER, BABU BARAHI BLOCK, DISTT- MADHUBANI. 6. NARAYAN MISHRA, MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, SATGHARA, BLOCK-BABU BARHI, DISTT- MADHUBANI. 7. SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ SATGHRA, BLOCK BABU BARHI, DISTT-MADHUBANI. ---------------Respondents. ------------------------ . 3. 29.10.2010 I.A. No. 4322 of 2010 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for amendment in the prayer portion of the writ application seeking to add prayer for quashing of the order dated 2.2.2010 by the appellate authority Having heard the parties, I.A. No. 4322 of 2010 is allowed. The petitioner was appointed as Shiksha Mitra on 28.04.2003. The appointment was on contractual basis for period of 11 months. On 11.8.2004 the Government revised the Educational Qualification of Shiksha Mitra and provided that it would be Intermediate. The Government took a 2 decision that those persons already working as Shiksha Mitra but not having Intermediate qualification should get the same within 33 months. Petitioner having attempted but failed to pass Intermediate within the stipulated period, his appointment was not extended and the vacancy was filled up by appointment of another person. Petitioner challenge his disengagement but as he had failed to attain the higher qualification the writ petition was dismissed. While the writ petition was pending petitioner appeared and clear the Up- Shastri Examination from Kameshwar Singh, Darbhanga Sanskrit University. It is now settled by the decisions of this Court that Up-Shastri is equivalent to Intermediate and is valid qualification in employment as Shiksha Mitra/Primary Teacher. Subsequently, Government took a policy decision to absorb all Shiksha Mitra and post them as Primary Teachers. A dispute then arose as to the period fixed by the Government for obtaining the degree of Intermediate. This matter came to this Court and ultimately this Court held that if a person has improved his educational qualification his services cannot be dispensed with. This decision was rendered in L.P.A. No. 940 of 2007 on 12.2.2008. In pursuance of the said Judgment of this Court, Government came out with 3 new policy which was notified on 4.7.2008 where they have revisited the whole issue and now decided that all those persons who had been recruited as Shiksha Mitra and had been dismissed for not having got Intermediate degree within stipulated period be taken back in service once they got the Intermediate degree and would be deemed to be in continuous service. Petitioner submits that now in view of the new policy of the year 2008 petitioner having passed Up-Shastri Examination has to be taken back. Petitioner accordingly had re-presented before the Collector Madhubani who directed the petitioner to approach the Bihar Primary Panchyat Teachers Appointment Appellate Tribunal. Petitioner accordingly, preferred appeal but the Tribunal rejected petitioner’s appeal on the ground firstly that his earlier writ petition had been dismissed by this Court. Secondly that consequent to his dismissal another person has been appointed in his place and thirdly that petitioner could not have two qualification that is intermediate and Up-Shastri in the same session. The petitioner assails the said order. In my view the writ petition must succeed. The Tribunal committed mistake in not referring to the policy of the Government of the year 2008. That policy 4 clearly provided that all persons dismissed have to be taken back. There is no discretion in the matter and this policy came long after writ petition was dismissed. This policy is relevant and had to be applied, whatever be the consequences. Now coming to the other ground that petitioner could not have persued two courses at the same time that is Intermediate and Up-Shastri. Petitioner has given the certificate that so far as Up- Shastri is concerned, he has done it in the Sessions 2001-2003 that is before the Sessions of Intermediate, though the examination were delayed. Thus petitioner has requisite qualification and he is covered by the Government policy decision of the year, 2008 and has to be reinstated in terms of the said policy. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal and direct the concerned Panchyat Secretary, Satghra, Madhubani to ensure that petitioner is gainfully employed as Panchyat Teacher within 15 days of production of a copy of order of this Court. This writ petition stands thus disposed of. Anand Kr. (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)