IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1672 of 2010 1. VIBHA KUMARI D/O SRICHAND YADAV R/O VILL AKAURA BAZAR, P.S.MUFFASIL,DISTT-NAWADA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE NAWADA 3. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER NAWADA 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION NAWADA 5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER NAWADA, DISTT-NAWADA 6. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFFICER NAWADA,DISTT-NAWADA 7. THE PANCHAYAT SACHIV, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ DEDAUR, DISTT-NAWADA 8. THE MUKHIYA , GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ DEDAUR, P.S.MUFFASIL,DISTT-NAWADA 9. MEMBER, DISTRICT APPOINTMENT AUTHORITY DISTT-NAWADA ----------- 2 26.7.2010 The petitioner was selected for appointment as Panchayat Teacher for Gram Panchayat Dedaur in the district of Nawadah. It appears that thereafter Panchayat Secretary of the said Panchayat cancelled the appointment of the petitioner . The petitioner appealed to the District Primary Panchayat Teachers Appellate Authority, Nawadah , which considered the entire matter and disposed of the matter by order dated 4.12.2009, as contained in Annexure 1 to the writ petition. The tribunal upon examination of the entire records found that the termination , as made by the Panchayat Secretary, could not be sustained. He had no authority to terminate rather the authority to terminate was on a Committee as constituted under Bihar Panchayat Teachers (Appointment and Service of Condition) Rules, 2 2006.Thus, the tribunal found that the termination was illegal. The consequence thereof ought to have been reinstatement of the petitioner but the tribunals refrained from doing so because it was of the view that the vacancy, so caused, by petitioner’s termination had been taken into account for fresh appointment in the second phase. That being so, the tribunal refused to reinstate the petitioner. However, the tribunal held that , for the period which the petitioner had worked, the petitioner must be paid his wages. Petitioner is aggrieved by the said order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the tribunal found that the termination of the petitioner was illegal and unsustainable , it was incumbent upon he tribunal to reinstate the petitioner , specially when the post remains vacant and is yet to be filled up. Learned counsel for the State states that once vacancy has been caused, the vacancy has to be filled up by fresh selection, which process has already started . In my view, there is no point in keeping the writ petition pending. As found by the tribunal, the termination of the petitioner was illegal, thus, normally petitioner would have got back the position, which he held. In the order itself it is mentioned that steps are to be taken for filling up the vacancy, so caused. In my view, as petitioner states that the vacancy has not 3 yet been filled up, the petitioner must immediately be reinstated not only that in view of the wrongful dismissal of the petitioner, he would be reinstated with effect from the date of termination and would be treated as never terminated. He would be entitled to all his remuneration. It would be open to the state to take appropriate action for recovery of the money that would be paid to the petitioner on this count from the persons responsible wrongly terminating the petitioner. Petitioner must be reinstated forthwith. It would be the responsibility of the Mukhiya of the Panchayat to see that the order of this Court is implemented forthwith. The order of the tribunal to that extent is set aside. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. singh ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)