IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1363 of 2010 1. Binita Kumari W/O Jai Shankar Prasad Singh R/O Vill.- Sadanandpur Baisa, P.S.- Kahalgaon, Distt.- Bhagalpur 2. Pushpa Kumari W/O Udya Kumar Singh and D/O Yamuna Pd. Singh R/O Vill.- Parwara, P.S.- Tarapur, Distt.- Munger Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Director, Primary Education Bihar, Patna 4. The District Superintendent Of Education Bhagalpur 5. The Member, District Teachers Appointment Appellate Tribunal Bhagalpur 6. The Block Development Officer Sanhoula, Bhagalpur 7. The Block Education And Extension Officer Sanhoula, Bhagalpur 8. The Mukhiya Bora Pathakdih Panchayat, Sanhoula, Bhagalpur 9. The Panchayat Secretary Bora Pathakdih Panchayat, Sanhoula, Bhagalpur 10.The Central Board of Higher Education, through its Secretary, Vachaspati Bhawan, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. ---------------------------------- With Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1380 of 2010 1. Jay Shankar Prasad Singh S/O Shri Dhaneshwar Pd. Singh R/O Vill Sadanandpur Baisa, P.S.Kahalgaon ,Distt-Bhagalpur 2. Pawan Kumar Pankaj S/O Shri Yamuna Pd. Singh R/O Vill Rani Bamiya ,P.S.Amdanda,Distt- Bhagalpur 3. Pinki Kumari D/O Deep Narayan Kushwaha & W/O Rajeev Kumar Singh R/O Vill Rani Bamiya, P.S.Amdanda,Distt-Bhagalpur Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary , Human Resources Development Department Govt. Of Bihar,Patna 3. The Director , Primary Education Bihar,Patna 4. The District Superinendent Of Education Bhagalpur 5. The Member , District Teacher Appointment Appellate Tribunal Bhagalpur 2 6. The Block Development Officer-Cum-Executive Officer Sanhaula, Bhagalpur 7. The Block Education And Extension Officer Sanhaula Block, Bhagalpur 8. The Mukhiya Bora Pathakdih Panchayat,Block- Sanhaula, Bhagalpur 9. The Panchayat Secretary Bora Pathakdih Panchayat,Block-Sanhaula, Bhagalpur 10.The Mukhiya Amdanda Panchayat , Sanhaula , Bhagalpur 11.The Panchayat Secretary Amdanda Panchayat , Sanhaula , Bhagalpur 12.The Central Board of Higher Education, through its Secretary, Vachaspati Bhawan, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. ---------------------------------- 5 07.12.2011 The order impugned in these writ applications is an order of the District Superintendent of Education (now designated as District Programme Officer, Establishment) dated 30.09.2009, as contained in Annexure-6, by which he has directed the Panchayat authorities to cancel the appointment of the Panchayat Teachers having obtained the degree from the Central Board of Higher Education, New Delhi and directing not to appoint any candidate with that degree. It is stated that, pursuant to the said order, petitioners have been removed from service as Panchayat Teachers. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this direction 3 was issued by the District Superintendent of Education in the light of the order of the Appellate Authority, as contained in Annexure-9, by which on the matter being remitted back from this Court in the case of one Akhilesh Kumar, the Appellate Authority, in absence of any proof produced by the said Akhilesh Kumar, held the degree from the said Institution as not recognized. The Appellate Authority further directed for termination of services of all other teachers with such degree from the said Institution. If the said Akhilesh Kumar did not appear and/or produce documents before the Appellate Authority in support of the degree from the said Central Board of Higher Education, New Delhi as recognized by the State Government or by the N.C.T.E., it does not mean that the petitioners could not do that. Clearly neither this Court in its order, by which it remitted back the matter of Akhilesh Kumar to the Appellate Authority, nor the Appellate Authority on the basis of unimpeachable documents had come to the 4 conclusion that degree from the said Institution was not recognized. The Appellate Authority only on account of non-production of materials by the said Akhilesh Kumar came to that finding. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that had the petitioners been given an opportunity they were in a position to satisfy the authorities that the degree from the said Institution was recognized in law. Since no notice was issued to the petitioners before terminating their services petitioners were prejudiced and violation of Principles of Natural Justice is committed by the respondents. Though a counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, but this fact has not been denied in the counter affidavit that prior to issue of the impugned order by the District Superintendent of Education, petitioners were never given any opportunity to satisfy the authorities with regard to recognition of the Institution. In the circumstances, on the 5 ground of violation of Principles of Natural Justice, both the writ applications are allowed. The impugned order of the District Superintendent of Education, as contained in Annexure-6 dated 30.09.2009 in both the writ applications and its follow-up orders terminating services of the petitioners, are quashed. The petitioners are directed to file a representation before the Appellate Authority with supporting documents in support of their claim with regard to recognition of the Institution in law within four weeks from today with a prayer to recall the said blanket order passed by the Appellate Authority in its order dated 05.09.2009. If they do so, the Appellate Authority shall consider the matter and pass fresh order on merits within two months after filing of the representation by the petitioners. Arvind/ ( J.N. Singh, J.)