IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1441 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 17187 of 2010 With Interlocutory Application No. 6901 of 2011 In Letters Patent Appeal No.1441 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Yogendra Ganesh son of Sri Ram Prasad Ganesh, Resident of Village- Haldi Bari, P.S.-Pothiya, District-Kishanganj. 2. Bimal Chandra Singh, Son of Late Bhole Nath Singh, Resident of Village- Barhariya, P.S. Taiyabpur, District-Kishanganj. .... .... Petitioners-Appellants Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, New Secretariat, Patna. 2. The District Magistrate, Purnia. 3. The District Superintendent Education Officer-cum-Sub-Divisional Educational Officer, Kishanganj. 4. The Block Education Extension Officer, Kishanganj. 5. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Pichhala, Kishanganj. .... .... Respondents-Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellants : Mr. Brisketu Sharan Pandey, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Binay Kr. Pandey, A.C. to S.C.-5 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Patna High Court LPA No.1441 of 2011 (2) dt.29-09-2011 2 / 4 2 2. 29-09-2011 Interlocutory Application No. 6901 of 2011: Delay of 57 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is condoned. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Letters Patent Appeal No.1441 of 2011: This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is preferred by the writ petitioners against the order dated 17th May 2011. By order dated 11th December 2006 made by the Block Development Officer, Pothiya, Kishanganj, the appellant no.1 was appointed as a Prakhand Teacher at Middle School, Mirzapur, Pothiya, Kishanganj. By order dated 12th December 2006 made by the Panchayat Secretary, Phala, Pothiya, Kishanganj, the appellant no.2 was appointed as Panchayat Teacher at Primary School, Purandarpur. The District Superintendent of Education, Kishanganj under his communication dated 13th September 2008 informed all the Block Education Extension Officers and Panchayat Secretaries of Kishanganj District that the appointment of the teachers who had not acquired two years’ training as envisaged by the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teacher (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 was not approved for payment of salary. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants filed above C.W.J.C. No. 17187 of 2010 under Article 226 of the Constitution for a direction to set aside the said order dated 13th September 2008. The learned single Judge has held that the appellants were not qualified for appointment as Prakhand Teacher/Panchayat Teacher. Consequently, the learned single Patna High Court LPA No.1441 of 2011 (2) dt.29-09-2011 3 / 4 3 Judge has rejected the writ petition. Therefore, the present Appeal. Learned advocate Mr. Brisketu Sharan Pandey has appeared for the appellants. He has submitted that the training of one year course or two years’ course does not make any difference so long as the appointment of Prakhand Teacher/Panchayat Teacher is concerned. In support of his contentions he relied upon the judgments of this Court in the matters of Shri Mahendra Prasad Mehta v. The District Superintendent of Education, Katihar and another, (1985 PLJR 709); and of Akshay Kumar Sinha and others v. The District Superintendent of Education, Purnea and another, (1986 PLJR 632). Rule 8 of the above referred 2006 Rules specifically requires that for appointment as Prakhand Teacher, a candidate must have acquired two years’ training from an institution recognized by the National Council for Teacher Education. For those who have acquired training prior to establishment of National Council for Teacher Education the provision is that they should have acquired two years’ training from an institution recognized by the State. Similar is the provision in respect of the appointment of Panchayat Teacher. In either case a candidate is required to have acquired two years’ training for being eligible for appointment as Prakhand Teacher or Panchayat Teacher. Admittedly, the appellants have not acquired such training. In our view, the learned single Judge is right in holding that the appellants were not eligible for appointment as Prakhand Teacher or Panchayat Teacher. The judgment in the matter of Shri Mahendra Prasad Mehta (supra) deals with the similar situation but in that case there were no recruitment rules to govern the selection and appointment. Besides, reliance was placed on Article Patna High Court LPA No.1441 of 2011 (2) dt.29-09-2011 4 / 4 4 460 of Bihar Education Code, 1961 equivalent to Article 482 of the Bihar Education Code, 2001. We may mention here that Bihar Education Code has been framed to regulate the education at various levels in the State of Bihar. The Code does not deal with the recruitment in public employment. Similar is the case in the matter of Akshay Kumar Sinha (supra). Once the recruitment to a public post is governed by the Statutory Rules framed under the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, the Court cannot permit deviation therefrom. It may also be noted that the District Superintendent of Education has issued a mere intimation to the Block Education Extension Officers and Panchayat Secretaries that the appointment of the teachers not possessing two years’ training was not approved for payment of salary. Learned advocate Mr. Pandey has submitted that although there is no order of termination of service or cancellation of appointment the appellants have not been paid the salary. We shall clarify that so long as the respondents continue the appellants in service, the respondents are bound to pay the salary/remuneration on the principle of quid pro quo. Subject to the above observation the Appeal is dismissed in limine. Pawan/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)