IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16591 of 2009 ANITA KUMARI, D/O SRI CHANDESHWAR PRASAD AND W/O SRI UPESH KUMAR, R/O VILLAGE AND P.O.- BALAUR, P.S.-KUDHANI, DISTRICT-MUZAFFARPUR. ………………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BIHAR (PATNA) 2. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR (PATNA) 3. REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, TIRHUT DIVISIN, MUZAFFARPUR. 4. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MUZAFFARPUR. 5. DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, MUZAFFARPUR. 6. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, MUZAFFARPUR. 7. DISTRICT EDUCATION SUPERINTENDENT, MUZAFFARPUR. 8. RANGE EDUCATION OFFICER, KUDHANI (TURKI) MUZAFFARPUR. 9. BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, KUDHANI (TURKI) MUZAFFARPUR. 10. HEADMASTER, PRIMARY SCHOOL BALAUR (KANYA) KUDHANI (TURKI) MUZAFFARPUR. 11. SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ BALAUR DIH, KUDHANI (TURKI) MUZAFFARPUR. 12. MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ BALAUR DIH, KUDHANI (TURKI) MUZAFFARPUR. 13. MEMBERS OF SUKH SUBIDHA (WELFARE0 COMMITTEE, PANCHAYAT RAJ BALAUR DIH, KUDHANI (TURKI) MUZAFFARPUR. ………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 5 16.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. In this writ application petitioner has challenged the order of the Appellate Authority dated 23.5.2009, as contained in Annexure-17, by which her appointment as Panchayat Teacher has been cancelled. As per the learned counsel for the 2 petitioner the appointment has been cancelled on two grounds, namely, (i) that the petitioner was granted fourth extension as Panchayat Siksha Mitra and (ii) that she had not passed Intermediate examination within 33 months of her first engagement. So far as fourth extension is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a letter of the Government contained in memo no.78 dated 20.1.2006, annexed as Annexure- 18, wherein it has been clearly laid down that the Siksha Mitras who had completed 33 months of service i.e. who had been granted the second extension, could also be considered for another extension if their services were found satisfactory. As per the case of the petitioner his second extension expired in February, 2006 and she was granted another extension for 11 months with effect from 18.3.2006. While working as a Panchayat Siksha Mitra and in terms of this extension she became a regular Panchayat Teacher. Therefore, it is rightly contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that there was nothing wrong in her third extension which was granted by Annexure-9. 3 So far as passing of Intermediate examination within 33 months from the date of first engagement is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to a judgment passed by a Single Bench dated 14.7.2009 in CWJC No. 3700 of 2009. After going through the judgment, this Court finds that this Court has clearly held that the circular of the Government namely no.2517 dated 4.7.2008, prescribing for passing of Intermediate examination within 33 months of first engagement, does not operate retrospectively. In that judgment, the Court found that before this circular came into force petitioner of that case had already passed Intermediate examination and therefore, on the application of the said circular the petitioner cannot be terminated. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petitioner had also passed Sahityabhushan, which is admittedly equivalent to Intermediate examination, in 2006 itself. Therefore, in terms of the said circular and in view of the said judgment of 4 this Court the petitioner could not be terminated. Although counter affidavit has been filed, but learned counsel for the State has not been able to controvert these submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. But learned counsel for the respondents submits that the certificate of Sahityabhushan which the petitioner has produced was forged and fabricated. However, learned counsel for the State has failed to point out that the genuineness of the certificate of Sahityabhushan produced by the petitioner was an issue and was examined by the Appellate Authority. It is apparent that the only question which was considered by the Appellate Authority was that the petitioner had not acquired the Intermediate qualification within 33 months of her first engagement. In view of the said judgment of this Court, as referred to above, that question is not open for the respondents to raise against the petitioner. The question of validity of extension of service of the petitioner for the third time is also not open for the respondents to raise in view of 5 the State Government letter as referred to above. In the circumstances, this Court finds that the grounds for cancellation of appointment of the petitioner as relied upon by the Appellate Authority are not valid. The order of the Appellate Authority is accordingly set aside. The petitioner is directed to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)