IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.W.J.C. No. 9417 of 2009 Manoranjan Kumar, aged about 34 years, son of late Gupteshwar Prasad Singh, resident of village Kharoj, P.O. Kalpa, P.S. & District Jehanabad at present Prakhand Teacher, Upgraded Middle School, Mahudar Block, Kauwakol, District Nawadah .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Human Resources, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. Project Director, Sarwa Shiksha Abhiyan, Government of Bihar, Patna 4. The District Magistrate, Nawadah 5. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Nawadah 6. The District Superintendent of Education-cum-District Programme Coordinator, Sarwa Shiksha Abhiyan, Government of Bihar, Patna 7. The Subdivisional Education Officer, Nawadah 8. The Pramukh, Kauwakol Panchayat Samiti-cum-Chairman, Prakhand Shiksha Selection Committee, Kauwakol, Nawadah 9. The Block Education Extension Officer-cum-Secretary, Prakhand Shikshak Selection Committee, Kauwakol, Nawadah 10. The Block Development Officer, Kauwakol, Nawadah-cum-Member Selection Committee .. Respondents **** /2/ 20.08.2009 Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner has filed this application for quashing the order, contained in Memo No. 321, dated 21.12.2007, passed by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Nawadah, cancelling all appointments of untrained teachers made for Kauwkol Block. Petitioner’s case is that he had applied for the post in response to advertisement through which 101 post 2 of Prakhand Teachers were advertised. He appeared before the Selection Committee. On the date of counseling which was held on 11.11.2007 and 18.11.2007 a panel for selected candidates was prepared, 61 posts were filled by trained teachers, two candidates were appointed on compassionate ground and rest of the posts were filled by selected untrained teachers. Petitioner joined on the post in the month of February, 2007, and started discharging his duties. Subsequently, some allegations were made against the appointment of untrained teachers and enquiry was conducted by the District Superintendent of Education himself. He found the allegations to be baseless. Again, complaint was made before the District Magistrate. On his direction fresh enquiry was held. During enquiry petitioner or none of the similarly situated persons were noticed to participate. The report was submitted by the enquiring officer and the Deputy Development Commissioner cancelled all appointments. It has been submitted by the petitioner’s counsel that impugned order cancelling appointment of Prakhand Teacher in Kauwakol Block, contained in Memo No. 321, dated 21.12.2007, was earlier challenged by several teachers, who were also appointed through the same selection process, 3 whereby the petitioner was selected. The order was challenged by filing C.W.J.C. No. 2209 of 2008 and considering the enquiry report it was held that only such appointments could have been reviewed against which specific complaints were made. Services of only those persons should have been terminated whose appointments after enquiry have been found to be made either in violation of reservation roster or merit list. General and speaking order of termination of all those persons who were appointed as untrained teachers, in complete observance of the merit list and reservation roster should not have been terminated specially when no allegations were made against the petitioner and when no irregularity were found against them. Counsel for the petitioner submits that no specific allegation was made against the present petitioner’s appointment. In the enquiry report also the petitioner’s appointment was not found to be made in violation of reservation roster or the merit list, as such, this case is fully covered by the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2209 of 2008. 3. Considering the fact that the merit of the impugned order has already been tested in C.W.J.C. No. 2209 of 2008 and the petitioner’s case is fully covered by the order 4 passed in this writ application, similar relief is allowed to the petitioner by quashing the order, contained in Memo No. 321, dated 21.12.2007, by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Nawadah, so far it relates to the petitioner. 4. With these observations and directions, this application is allowed. Cp:2/S.A. (Mridula Mishra, J.)