IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8708 of 2008 1. ANIL KUMAR SINGH, S/O LATE BASHISTH SINGH, R/O VILLAGE+P.O.-KARSAUT, P.S.-DARAUNDA, DISTRICT-SIWAN. 2. KAMAL KISHOR DAS, S/O SRI SINGASAN RAM, R/O VILLAGE+P.O.-KARSAUT, P.S.-DARAUNDA, DISTRICT-SIWAN. 3. POONAM KUMARI @ POONAM DEVI, W/O SRI NAGENDRA SINGH, D/O SRI JAGDISH SINGH, R/O VILLAGE-BAUNAGANJ JALLALPUR, P.O.- JALLALPUR, P.S.-DARAUNDA, DISTRICT-SIWAN. 4. RAJU DEVI, W/O SRI MANOJ KUMAR MAHTO, D/O SRI RANGILLA PRASAD @ RANGILA MAHTO, R/O VILLAGE-PANDEYPUR, P.S.-DARAUNDA, DISTRICT-SIWAN. 5. KUMARI NILAM SINGH, W/O LATE VIJAY SINGH, R/O VILLAGE+P.O.-BISUNPURA, P.S.-DARAUNDA, DISTRICT-SIWAN. 6. PREM KUMAR YADAV, S/O LALAN YADAV, R/O VILLAGE-MARASARA, P.S.-DARAUNDA, DISTRICT- SIWAN. 7. DHANRAJ MANJHI, S/O SRI KISHOR MANJHI, R/O VILLAGE-KATWAR, P.S.-DARAUNDA, DISTRICT- SIWAN. 8. PREMNATH PRASAD, S/O LATE BHADAI PRASAD, R/O VILLAGE-BAGAURA, NANDU KATOLLA, P.S.- DARAUNDA, DISTRICT-SIWAN. 9. SANJAY KUMAR YADAV, S/O SRI NANDJI YADAV, R/O VILLAGE-MANCHHA, P.S.-DARAUNDA, DISTRICT-SIWAN. 10. LALDEO RAWAT, S/O LATE HEERA RAWAT, R/O VILLAGE-AMHARUA, P.S.-DARAUNDA, DISTRICT- SIWAN. 11. BINOD KUMAR PRASAD, S/O SRI ABHIRAM PRASAD, R/O VILLAGE+P.O.-JALALPUR, P.S.- DARAUNDA, DISTRICT-SIWAN.……………PETITIONERS. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, SIWAN. 4. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, DARAUNDA, P.S.-DARAUNDA, DISTRICT-SIWAN. 5. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY, REGIONAL CENTRE, BISCOMAUN BHAWAN, GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA-1. ……………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2 3 30.08.2011 Petitioners have filed this writ application challenging a communication of the District Programme Officer dated 11.06.2008 addressed to all the B.E.E.Os of district of Siwan, as contained in Annexure- 1, by which by directing them to issue admit cards to the untrained teachers to appear in the training examination going to be held by the IGNOU it has been made clear that admit cards of such candidates who had not passed the Intermediate examination/10+2 examination with at least 45% marks should be withheld. Petitioners have also challenged the consequent office order of the B.E.E.O., Daraunda dated 13.06.2008, as contained in Annexure-2, restraining them from appearing in the examination. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the District Programme Officer issued the directions in view of one Guidelines of the Government, contained in resolution no.1458 dated 11.08.2004, which prescribes minimum 45% marks in Intermediate or equivalent examination as eligibility for appointment as Panchayt Teachers. He submits that the petitioners were appointed as 3 Panchayat Teachers much earlier to this Guideline. Hence, the said Guidelines could not be made applicable to them so as to debar them from completing training. He also submits that, later on, this requirement has been diluted by the State Government through some resolution issued in 2009 and instructions have been issued to reinstate such teachers who were put out of service on account of this restriction. This writ application was filed on 18.06.2008 with service of two copies of the same in the office of learned Advocate General. However, till today no counter affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel for the State, however, accepts that subsequently this requirement has been diluted by the Government and the teachers whose services have been terminated on this ground have been directed to be reinstated in service. When this writ application was earlier heard by a Bench of this Court on 19.06.2008 the respondents were granted time to file counter affidavit and this Court by way of interim measure directed all concerned to allow the petitioners to appear in the 4 examination. However, the Court restrained publication of their result. It is not disputed that, pursuant to the said interim order, all the petitioners have appeared in the examination. Now, in view of the change legal position, this Court finds that the petitioners are entitled for publication of their result. The writ application is accordingly allowed. The Regional Director of IGNOU is directed to publish the result of the petitioners. Arvind/ ( J.N. Singh, J.)