IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10802 of 2009 ANU KUMARI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS -With- CWJC No.10889 of 2009 DAYA NAND KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the petitioners: Mr. Amaresh kumar Sinha Mr. Dayanand Singh For the State: Mr. A.C. to G.P.-7 2. 13.10.2009 Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the counsel appearing for the state. Counsel for the petitioners is permitted to make necessary correction in the relief portion at page-3 of both writ applications. Petitioners have prayed for quashing the order contained in letter dated 29.08.2008 issued under the signature of Block Education Extension Officer, Barhara Kothi. By the impugned order, petitioners’ appointment as Panchayat Teachers being illegal has been cancelled. Petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 10802/09 was initially appointed as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra in Middle School Arbanna Chakla, while petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 10829/09 was appointed as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra in Primary School, Jayanagara; both in the block-Barhara Kothi, District-Purnea. They gave their joining on 07.04.2003. Their engagement as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra was extended on three occasions. In the meantime, Bihar Primary Teachers (Appointment & service conditions) Rule, 2006 came into 2 force w.e.f. 07.07.2006 and as provided under rule 20(3) of 2006 Rules, petitioners on account of their continuation on the post of Panchayat Shikcha Mitras, were absorbed as Panchayat Teachers w.e.f. 01.07.2006. Subsequently, appointment of almost all several Panchayat Shiksha Mitras, absorbed on the post of panchayat teachers, were cancelled on the ground that they did not have requisite intermediate qualification at the time of their initial appointment as Panchayat Shikcha Mitras. Termination orders wee challenged and Division Bench of High court in L.P.A. No. 940 of 2007, held that such termination orders are bad as they are not in consonance with the guidelines for appointment of Panchayat Shiksha Mitras at the relevant time. It was directed that termination orders of such Panchayat Teachers were quashed and direction was issued for their reinstatement giving them opportunity to enhance their qualification. The L.P.A. Bench also held that in case, such Panchayat Teachers have enhanced their qualification within 33 months from the date of their appointment, they should continue on the posts. Similar termination order, like impugned order in present case was considered by this court in C.W.J.C. No. 3700 of 2009 as on account of enhancement of qualification by Panchayat Shikcha Mitra, absorbed as teacher beyond the period of 33 months, was shown a reason for cancelling the appointment of Panchayat Teachers. By judgment/order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3700 of 2009, it was held that since petitioner is now possessing 3 qualification for continuing in service as Primary Teacher, then simply, for this reason that she enhanced her qualification beyond the period of 33 months from the date of her initial appointment, cannot be a ground for termination from service. Intention behind fixing 33 months period for acquiring enhanced qualification of intermediate, must have been put to improve educational qualification and knowledge capacity of Shikcha Mitras, already absorbed on the post of Panchayat Teachers. Enhancement of qualification was essential for improving standard of teaching in Primary Schools, which is the starting point of educational system. It is for the benefit of both, i.e. the teachers and students. Intention behind these Government Circular in no case can be punitive and should not be used as a weapon to harass Panchayat Shiksha Mitras already absorbed as Teachers. Petitioners’ case is fully covered by the judgment and order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3700 of 2009 (Indu Devi vs The State of Bihar & Ors.). Both these writ applications are allowed. The impugned order in both the writ applications contained in the letter dated 29.08.2008 declaring petitioners’ appointment as illegal, is quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioners with all consequential benefits without delay preferably within two weeks from the date of receipt/production of the order. This order will apply in the case of all such persons, who are terminated for the same reason. Such persons may also before 4 the Competent authority for their reinstatement in same terms and conditions as mentioned in this order. Copy of the order be handed over to G. P.-7. AKV/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)