IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No. 13794 of 2009 CHANDRASHEKHAR, SON OF RAM BIHARI MEHTA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – KATEYAN, P.S. – BIHIYA IN THE DISTRICT OF BHOJPUR ………………… PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-COLLECTOR, BHOJPUR AT ARRA 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, BHOJPUR AT ARRA 5. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, BIHIYA IN THE DISTRICT OF BHOJPUR 6. THE GRAM PANCHAYAT, KATEYAN THROUGH ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY UNDER BIHIYA BLOCK IN THE DISTRICT OF BHOJPUR AT ARRA 7. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT, KATEYAN UNDER BIHIYA BLOCK IN THE DISTRICT OF BHOJPUR AT ARRA 8. THE MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT, KATEYAN UNDER BIHIYA BLOCK IN THE DISTRICT OF BHOJPUR AT ARRA ………….. RESPONDENTS ----------- FOR THE PETITIONER: MR. RANJEET KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR THE STATE: MR. RAM BILASH MAHTO, ADVOCATE ********** 05. 19.08.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner’s prayer is for quashing of order, contained in letter no. 2, dated 10.10.2009, issued by the Panchayat Secretary and Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat, Kateyan under Bihiya Block in the district of Bhojpur, whereby the petitioner has been terminated 2 from the post of Panchayat Teacher in pursuance to the direction issued by the District Superintendent of Education, Bhojpur and the direction issued by the Director, Primary Education, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, contained in letter no. 7, dated 03.07.2009. The ground for petitioner’s termination was that at the time of his initial engagement as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra in the year 2003, he was not eligible for appointment being below 18 years of age. Petitioners, at the time of his termination had already been absorbed on the post of Panchayat Teacher. Fact of the case as revealed in the Writ Application that in the year 2003, petitioner, for the first time, was selected and engaged as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra. As alleged by the Respondents, at the relevant time petitioner had not attained 18 years of age, as such not eligible for being selected for the post. However, petitioner’s selection was not challenged by anyone in between 2003-04. On completion of 11 months period, the petitioner was again selected for the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra. At that time, he has already gained majority and completed 18 years of age. In the year 2005 on the third occasion, petitioner was selected 3 for Panchayat Shiksha Mitra’s post. While continuing on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra, he was absorbed on the post of Panchayat Teacher as provided under Rule 19 of Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Employment and Service Condition) Rules, 2006. Subsequent to petitioner’s absorption on the post of Panchayat Teacher, some complaints were made with regard to his initial appointment as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra in the year 2003 and making it a ground, he was terminated from the post of Panchayat Teacher. In the Counter Affidavit also, only ground which has been taken by the respondents in order to justify their order of termination is petitioner’s being below 18 years in the year 2003, when he was appointed as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra, for the first time. I fail to understand that how petitioner could have been terminated from the post of Panchayat Teacher in the year 2009, when he had already been absorbed on the post and at the relevant time, he was much above 18 years of age. The guideline for Panchayat Shiksha Mitra’s appointment is very specific on this point that any Panchayat Shiksha Mitra can be selected and engaged for the post, maximum for three consecutive periods of 33 months, each tenure being of 4 11 months. On completion of 11 months, the tenure of first selection will expire. There will be fresh selection for the 2nd tenure and 3rd tenure of 11 months each. This means that each selection is independent of the next selection. In case the petitioner was less than 18 years of age at the time of his first selection, only his selection in the year 2003 could have been considered to be illegal being in violation of guidelines, as petitioners had not completed 18 years of age, and not eligible for the post. So far subsequent two selections, in the year 2004-2005 and 2005-06 are concerned, petitioner had eligibility for being appointed on the post and while continuing on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra, was absorbed on the post of Panchayat Teacher. There was no obvious reason for passing termination order against the petitioner. Considering these facts, I find that the impugned termination order, contained in letter no. 2, dated 10.10.2009 and order, contained in letter no. 7, dated 03.07.2009 are completely arbitrary and illegal, and fit to be quashed. These two impugned orders are quashed. Respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Panchayat Teacher from which he was terminated on account of the impugned orders. 5 The reinstatement of the petitioner on the post will be with all consequential benefits. SKM (Mridula Mishra, J.)