IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14885 of 2010 Ram Bilas Mandal son of Late Basudeo Mandal, R.O.V Dumaha, P.S. & Block Gopalpur, Dist-Bhagalpur. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Commissioner cum Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development, Govt. of Bihar Patna. 3. The Director, Primary Education Deptt. Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Director, Research & Training Dept. of Human Resources Govt. of Bihar Patna. 5. The District Magistrate, Bhaglapur. 6. The District Superintendent of Education, Bhagalpur. 7. The District Education Officer, Bhagalpur. 8. The Sub-Divisional Education officer Bhagalpur. 9. The Block Development Officer, Block Gopalpur Dist- Bhagalpur. 10. The Block Education Extension Officer, Block Gopalpur, Dist- Bhagalpur. 11. The Mukhiya Gram Panchayt Raj. Khagara, P.S & Block Gopalpur, Dist-Bhagalpur. 12. The secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Khagra. P.s. & Block Gopalpur, Dist-Bhagalpur. 13. The Secretary, Millia Sir Saiyed Teachers Training College Ram Bagah Purnea Dist-Purnea ----------- 2 22.04.2011 Petitioner makes a grievance that he was validly appointed as Panchyat teacher and has been working in that capacity since 30.12.2006. Letter of appointment is Annexure-5. After all these years of working suddenly his salary has been stopped since April, 2010 on the purported ground that the certificate of training which the petitioner had obtained is not a validly recognized since the recognition of institution in question stood withdrawn vide Notification No. 334 dated 24.11.2000 issued by the Director Research and Training Government of Bihar which is Annexure-6. One of the prayer is also to quash Annexure- 6. The Court fails to understand as to why the Court should quash Annexure-6 again and again when admitted position is that 2 Annexure-6 has been quashed by the High Court on many an occasion. A writ application filed by many a petitioner was regd. as C.W.J.C No. 2323 of 2009. It was disposed of on 03.07.2009 by the learned Single Judge who clearly held that a recognition given earlier cannot be taken away from retrospective date by a subsequent Notification. The memo contained in Annexure-6 was quashed. This decision of the learned Single Judge was upheld by a Division Bench in L.P.A No. 1406 of 2009. If that is the position with regard to status of Annexure-6 then a second order for quashing the same is not required to be passed. If existence of Annexure-6 and withdrawal of recognition from the retrospective date is the reason for non- payment of the salary to the petitioner then it goes without saying that the respondents have to pay salary to the petitioner and it cannot be withheld on that score unless there are other legal impediments . This writ petition stands disposed of with the above direction. Prakash (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)