Patna High Court CWJC No.6819 of 2009 (5) dt.29-08-2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6819 of 2009 ====================================================== Amarnath Singh .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6820 of 2009 ====================================================== Subhash Kumar .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6828 of 2009 ====================================================== Rajendra Choudhary .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : (In CWJC No.6819 of 2009) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar @Sunil Kr.Jha Mr. Ranjit Sinha For the Respondent/s : Mr. (Sc15) Mr. . (In CWJC No.6820 of 2009) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar @Sunil Kr.Jha For the Respondent/s : Mr. (Aag4) (In CWJC No.6828 of 2009) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar @Sunil Kr.Jha For the Respondent/s : Mr. (Sc15) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. MRIDULA MISHRA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. MRIDULA MISHRA) 5 29-08-2011 Petitioners in all these writ applications have prayed for Patna High Court CWJC No.6819 of 2009 (5) dt.29-08-2011 quashing of order dated 19.5.2009 contained in letter No. 1584, whereby the District Superintendent of Education, Vaishali has directed the Panchayat Secretary/Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Raj Bhagwatpur to dismiss all these petitioners from the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra and to institute First Information Report against them. By the impugned order petitioners Amar Nath Singh, Subash Kumar, Rajendra Choudhary as well as two more, namely, Varaun Kumar and Meeta Kumari have been terminated from the post of Panchayat Siksha Mitra, on the basis of an inquiry report submitted by the Block Education Extension Officer. Reason assigned for termination of petitioner Amar Nath Singh is that at the time of his appointment he claimed to have obtained 437 marks in Secondary examination but on verification it is found to be of 436. Counsel for the petitioners submits that at no point of time petitioner had claimed for more marks than mentioned in his matriculation certificate and in the Intermediate certificate. Petitioner’s case is that he has been terminated for non-existent ground. The ground for termination, in case of petitioner Rajendra Choudhary was that, he was appointed without his name being in the merit list. Petitioner’s case is that his name Patna High Court CWJC No.6819 of 2009 (5) dt.29-08-2011 is in the merit list; in support of this fact merit list has been annexed with the writ application. Another petitioner Subhash Kumar was terminated on the ground that there is discrepancy in his date of birth. In order to contradict this ground, petitioner has annexed documents to show that termination order had been passed without looking into the documents, on imaginary ground. So far Varun Kumar and Meeta Kumari are concerned; they have not filed writ applications independently. I.A. No. 6164 of 2009 and I.A. No.6902 of 2009 had been filed for being impleaded as intervenor/ petitioners. Since an intervenor cannot be impleaded as petitioners, and only as respondents, in case their interest is going to be affected on account of any order passed in the writ application. Interveners’ applications are rejected giving them liberty to challenge their termination order, by filing writ applications. Petitioners have also challenged the impugned order on the ground that it is without jurisdiction. Rule 18 of Bihar Panchayat Teachers (Appointment and service Conditions) Rules, 2006, only Block Development Officer was competent to pass any order in the matters relating to appointment, termination and service conditions of Panchayat Teachers. So Patna High Court CWJC No.6819 of 2009 (5) dt.29-08-2011 far D.S.E is concerned; he has not been vested with any power under the Rule. In this view of the matter also, the order of termination issued against petitioners vide impugned order is fit to be quashed, being illegal and without jurisdiction. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of District Superintendent of Education is unsatisfactory and there is nothing to show that DSE had any reason for passing the termination order in respect of the petitioners, except for some malicious reasons. It seems that the order was passed by the DSE for some malicious on non-existent grounds. Accordingly, the order dated 19.5.2009 contained in letter no. 1584 issued by the District Superintendent of Education; Vaishali is quashed in respect of all three petitioners. Petitioners will continue on the post and will be entitled for their salary, incase not paid to them, on account of called impugned order. If they are being paid, they will continue to receive their salary. All three writ applications are allowed. Arun Kumar/- (Mridula Mishra, J)