IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8559 of 2010 1. ASHOK KUMAR YADAV S/O UDAI SHANKAR YADAV R/O VILL.- BARA TAKIA, P.O. KHODAIBAGH, P.S. KHAIRA, DISTT.- SARAN (CHAPRA) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE SECRETARY-CUM-COMMISSIONER HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SARAN (CHAPRA) 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, SARAN 5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER NAGRA, SARAN 6. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER NAGRA, SARAN 7. THE PANCHAYAT TEACHERS PANEL PREPARATION COMMITTEE GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, DUMARI, NAGARA, SARAN THROUGH ITS MUKHIYA 8. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ DUMARI, NAGRA, SARAN 9. THE HEAD MASTER, GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL HARIHARPUR KAMAR NAGRA, SARAN 10. MITHILESH KUMAR S/O SRI BHAGWAN RAI R/O VILL.- KALIPUR NAGRA, P.O. NAGRA, P.S. KHAIRA, DISTT.- SARAN 11. KAUSHAR EQBAL S/O MD. MOBIN R/O VILLAGE AND P.O. NAGRA, P.S. KHAIRA, DISTT.- SARAN (CHAPRA) 12. MD. AMANULLAH KHAN S/O JIAUL HAQUE KHAN R/O VILL.- HARIHARPUR, DISTT.- SUPAUL ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr.Rajendra Narain and Mr.Gyan Pakash For the State ; Mr. Prahlad Kumar Bhagat. 2 7.7.2010 The petitioner had applied for appointment to the post of Panchayat teacher , as envisaged under the Bihar Primary Panchayat Teachers (Appointment and Service Condition) Rules, 2006. He was duly empanelled and selected and as such was duly appointed in 2007. At the time of appointment in different part of the State, a controversy has arisen as to the 2 equivalence of intermediate in vocational study, a degree given by the Bihar Intermediate Council, authority took a view that intermediate in vocational course was not equivalent to intermediate in Science, Art or others . Such persons, who had intermediate vocational course, were thus in eligible for this appointment. The matter came to this Court and ultimately in CWJC No.3974 of 2008 and analogous cases being Binay Kant Choudhary & ors-v- The State of Bihar & ors by judgment and order dated 16.5.2008 this Court held that the intermediate vocational course was equivalent to intermediate. This Court accordingly gave direction that any person, whose services had been terminated on this ground simplicitor had to be reinstated. Any person ,who had been deprived of selection because of this, had to be readjusted by removing the last person in the merit list. It appears that pursuant to this judgment, the department of Human Resources Department, Government of Bihar through Principal Secretary issued a circular clearly stating that for the purposes of Primary Panchayat Teacher/Block Teacher intermediate in vocational course would be deemed to be the equivalent to intermediate and would be a good qualification for the said post. In so far as petitioner’s case is concerned, it appears that one Mithilesh Kumar though had been empanelled was not considered for appointment as he had intermediate in vocational course. He then approached this Court and this Court directed 3 the petitioner to represent before the District Magistrate , who would enquire into the matter and pass an appropriate order. The District Magistrate then enquired into the matter and then directed that Mithilesh Kumar should be appointed in accordance with the order of this Court and the Circular of the State Government and thus referred the matter to the Selection Committee, which had made the appointment. The Selection Committee then found that the said Mithilesh Kumar had to be appointed and as such a plea has to be made to him taking the view from the direction of this Court in the case of Binay Kant Choudhary, the Selection Committee sought to remove, which has brought the petitioner to this Court. Having heard the parties and with their consent this application is being disposed of at this stage itself. The grievance is that when this Court directed that the last person in the merit may be removed to make appointment, who was wrongly deprived of appointment, then the petitioner being not the last, ought not to have been removed. In my view, the matter requires reconsideration by the Selection Committee . I, therefore, direct that till the matter is reconsidered by the Selection Committee, the order terminating the services of the petitioner shall remain in abeyance. The Selection Committee would met at once and re-examine the matter in view of under noted direction- They would examine whether the said mithilesh 4 Kumar sought appointment against any reserved category pr general category. If he sought appointment as against reserved category then he would replace the person in the reserved category, who on merit was just below him and was selected . If he is of general category then he would come in play just above the person who is in merit just below him and consequently the last person in the list of general category would get displaced. This would be inconformity with the roster principle. Accordingly, the entire panel has to be recast. If upon such recasting it is found that the petitioner remains in service then it will be held that the petitioner was never terminated for all purposes but in case it is found that the petitioner has to make way as a consequence of induction of Mithilesh Kumar then it would be deemed that from the date the order of termination was issued ceased. This exercise would be done by the Selection Committee within two weeks from the date of production of a copy of this order before the Mukhiya of the concerned Panchayat and petitioner would not be treated as terminated unless he is heard in the matter. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. singh ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)