IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5303 of 2010 1. NILAM KUMARI W/O ARUN PRASAD R/O VILLAGE- NARARI, P.S-THARTHARI , DISTRICT - NALANDA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, HUMAN RESORUCES DEPARTMENT. 2. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, BIHAR,PATNA. 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NALANDA AT BIHARSHARIF. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, NALANDA AT BIHARSHARIF. 5. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER ,NOORSARAI , DISTRICT - NALANDA. 6. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER ,NOORSARAI , DISTRICT - NALANDA. 7. THE AREA EDUCATION OFFICER ,NOORSARAI , DISTRICT - NALANDA. 8. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER , THARTHARI , DISTRICT - NALANDA. 9. THE MUKHIYA, ASTA GRAM PANCHAYAT,P.S - THARTHARI , DISTRICT - NALANDA. 10. THE HEADMASTER, MIDDLE SCHOOL, NARARI, P.S - THARTHARI , DISTRICT - NALANDA. ----------- For the Petitioner : M/s Vidya Sagar and Samir Kumar Ranjan For the respondents: MR. Sanjay Kumar Sinha, S.C. 13. 2 11.8.2010 By this writ application, the petitioner has challenged the letter of District Superintendent of Education, Nalanda, dated 28.8.2009 (Annexure 19) addressed to Block Education Extension Officer, Nalanda, by which he has directed that the services of the petitioner as Panchayat Teacher should be terminated. Consequent whereof the services of the petitioner have been terminated. Petitioner submits that the order of termination cannot be sustained ,firstly on the ground that this has been done without notice to the petitioner and secondly , on fact, it is stated that the order is misconceived. - 2 - It appears that the petitioner was recruited as Shiksha Mitra in the year 2005 . The employment was for a period of eleven months, subject to renewal thereof. It is further not in dispute that one of the conditions as put at the time of recruitment was that the petitioner must complete intermediate course within thirty three months for continuance of his service. Petitioner’s recruitment was extended by a period of eleven months and then the petitioner was to be regularized/absorbed as Primary Panchayat Teacher under the Bihar Primary Panchayat Teacher (Employment and Service of Condition) Rules, 2006. Here it appears that the petitioner not having Intermediate qualification, petitioner was terminated . This termination order was passed on 22.8.2007. To me it appears that the termination order was passed as then the petitioner could only produce mark sheet for the year 2006 of the Intermediate examination in which she has failed. However, subsequently petitioner got herself reinstated on basis of mark sheet of Intermediate examination of the year 2007. There appears to be a controversy as to actually what had led to the first termination. It appears that there are two sets of mark sheet available with the respondents , one which shows that in 2006 petitioner had failed ,as noted above and the second which shows that the petitioner having passed but on verification from the Examination Board that mark sheet is disclosed to be forged. Be that as it may, petitioner was terminated but managed to get reinstated soon thereafter and this time the reinstatement was - 3 - apparently on basis of mark sheet of 2007 examination in which petitioner had passed. Now again some complaints were made and an ex parte enquiry was conducted by the authority. Undisputedly without notice to the petitioner , based on the allegation of having forged mark sheet of intermediate course, by the impugned order the petitioner has been terminated once again but undisputedly at no point of time petitioner was asked to explain. On behalf of the petitioner it is submitted that the requirement to sit for intermediate examination is a matter of upgrading educational qualification as has been held by this Court in several judgments. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has passed intermediate examination in the year 2007 as per mark sheet dated 31.5.2007. It is on basis thereof that he was reinstated. Having now acquired educational qualification some thing happened in the past cannot be re-opened and that too without notice to the petitioner and the petitioner’s services cannot be terminated. On both these counts, the order of the tribunal dated 28.8.2009 and the consequential order as contained in Annexures 19 and 20 cannot be sustained . They are accordingly quashed. It shall be deemed that the petitioner is continuing in service as Primary Teacher without any break except she would not be entitled to her wages for the period for which she has not worked. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. singh (Navaniti Prasad Singh)