IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10132 of 2007 Santosh Kumar Singh, son of Sri Nagendra Singh, resident of Village- Parsurampur, P.S. Pipra, District- East Champaran ….. Petitioner Versus 1.The State Of Bihar 2.The Collector, East Champaran, Motihari 3.The District Superintendent of Education, East Champaran 4.The Block Development Officer, Chakiya, East Champaran 5.The Block Education Extension Officer, Chakiya, East Champaran 6.The Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Raj, Kuarpur, District- East Champaran 7.The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Kuarpur, District- East Champaran …… Respondents ----------- 2. 25/07/2009 Petitioner’s case is that after having worked for about one month as Panchayat Teacher, his services were terminated on the ground that he was having Intermediate Degree in Vocational course which was not recognized as equivalent to Intermediate Degree in regular course. Same question arose before this Court in several writ applications and by order dated 21.8.2008 passed in C.W.J.C.No.10203 of 2007 and other analogous cases, this Court held that the Intermediate Degree in regular course and vocational course are equal. It is informed that thereafter the State Government has also - 2 - issued notification holding that the Intermediate Degree in vocational course is equivalent to Intermediate Degree in regular course from any institution. After the said judgment of this Court dated 21.8.2008, which has been brought on record by the petitioner through supplementary affidavit as Annexure-6, petitioner filed representation before the Block Education Extension Officer and Block Development Officer enclosing the said judgment of this Court. Copies of the representations are Annexure-7 series with the supplementary affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioner informs this Court that no order has been passed as yet on the said representations. Therefore, he prays that this writ application may be disposed of with a direction to the said Block Education Extension Officer and Block Development Officer to dispose of the said representations in the light of the law laid down by this Court by its order dated 21.8.2008, and in the light of the notification of the State Government. Learned counsel for the State submits that second phase of appointment is going on - 3 - and it may be that the post falling vacant due to termination of the petitioner may have been filled up. Law was laid down by this Court by order dated 21.8.2008 and the representation was filed by the petitioner enclosing copy of the said judgment of this Court in September, 2008. Therefore, in case, vacancy occurred due to termination of the petitioner was filled up by the respondents subsequent to filing of the representation, fault squarely lies with the respondents. Since his representation was already pending before them and the judgment of this Court was also produced before them by the petitioner, they were required to take final decision on the same in the light of the aforesaid judgment before proceeding with any fresh appointment on the post. In the circumstances, this Court makes it clear that while considering the representation of the petitioner, respondents will not reject it on the ground that the post has been filled up by them. If it has been filled up, subsequent to filing of the representation by the petitioner, they will - 4 - consider the representation of the petitioner on its merits and in the light of the judgment of this Court as well as notification of the State Government. Consequential final order on the representation must be issued within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the above observations and directions, this writ application is disposed of. Pradeep/ (J. N. Singh, J.)