IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15476 of 2009 1. PRIYA RANJAN S/O LATE JANARDAN PASWAN R/O VILL.- TEKUNA, P.S.- PRATAPGANJ, DISTT.- SUPAUL-----------PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER/SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT DEPTT. GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SUPAUL 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, SUPAUL 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION SUPERINTENDENT, SUPAUL 5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, PRATAPGANJ, DISTT.- SUPAUL 6. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, PRATAPGANJ, DISTT. – SUPAUL--------------------RESPONDENTS with CWJC No.17986 of 2009 1. SAVITA KUMARI D/O LATE RAMSWARUP PASWAN R/O VILL.- TEKUNA, P.S.- PRATAPGANJ, DISTT.- SUPAUL---PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER/SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SUPAUL 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER SUPAUL 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION SUPERINTENDENT SUPAUL 5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER PRATAPGANJ, DISTT. - SUPAUL 6. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER PRATAPGANJ, DISTT. – SUPAUL--------------------------RESPONDENTS ----------- For the Petitioners: Mr. Shekhar Singh, Advocate For the State: Mr. Naushuduzzala A.C. to SC-18 (in CWJC No.15476/2009) For the State: Mr. Pankaj Kumar, A.C. to G.A.-8 (in CWJC No.17986/2009 ---------- 3 17.1.2011 Since the issue is same and similar in both these two writ applications, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Annexure-4 is the order impugned in the present writ applications. By virtue of the said decision both the petitioners were removed from service. The two petitioners who were appointed as Panchayat Sikashak on the basis of their degree of Pandit having been obtained from Gurukul University Brindavan (Mathura) has not been - 2 - found to be equivalent to intermediate or recognized as such by the State of Bihar for appointment as Panchayat teacher in the State of Bihar. The order of removal has irked the petitioners and provoked them to file the two writ applications. The first contention on behalf of two petitioners is that they have been first removed and thereafter they have been asked to show cause, therefore, this decision ought to be interfered with for violation of principle of natural justice as the post decisional hearing is no hearing in the eye of law. The second contention is that the petitioners have already filed their show cause before the concerned authority making a request for them to consider their qualification of matriculation for appointment on the post because the minimum qualification, according to petitioners, can also be matriculation with a rider that they may be permitted to obtain intermediate degree in the time frame and the impugned order may be set aside and direction be issued to respondents to decide their representations. The Court is not willing to do either of the two for the following reasons. The findings are there and despite the detailed assertion in the writ applications having been filed by the petitioners there is no evidence on record to show that the so called degree of Pandit issued by the - 3 - institution in question is a recognized and valid degree at par with intermediate so far as the State of Bihar is concerned. This foundational evidence ought to have been produced by the petitioners if there was/is any notification in this regard supporting the claim of the petitioners which has not been done. This Court is neither willing to accept the bald assertion in absence of evidence nor interfere with the decision taken against them. So far as the opportunity of hearing before the decision is concerned, it is a fact that the appointments are made conditionally with a rider that Pandit’s degree was subject to verification with regard validity of such degree. Since there is no material to show that the degree of Pandit is at par with intermediate examination recognized as such in the State of Bihar, the appointment of the petitioners in the first place was per se is illegal. The said illegality is now being undone by the said decisions and this Court is not willing to accept the hyper technical stand taken by the petitioners specially when they have failed to even convince the Court about the bona fide of the degree in question and its recognition as such in the State of Bihar. So far as the disposal of representation is concerned it is now not required to be done since the Court is of the opinion that the petitioners have no case and had no right for appointment in the first place. - 4 - The Court is of the view that the children of the State who are going to be taught by such persons are entitled to be imparted education by persons who have proper and valid degrees and not obtained from dubious institutions. Both the writ applications are dismissed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)