IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.14683 OF 2007 1.MANISH KUMAR, S/O GANESH PRASAD THAKUR. 2.ARVIND KUMAR, S/O KAMESHWAR THAKUR. 3.POOJA KUMARI, DAUGHTER OF CHANDESHWAR THAKUR. 4.KIRAN KUMARI, DAUGHTER OF KAMESHWAR THAKUR, ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE BAKHRI, GOPAL CHAPRA, P.S. KALYANPUR, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN. …………………PETITIONERS. VERSUS 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3.THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA. 4.TEH DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA. 5.THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI. 6.THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI. 7.THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, KALYANPUR BLOCK, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI. 8.THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, KALYANPUR, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI. 9.THE MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT BAKHRI, P.S KALYANPUR, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI. 10.THE MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT SHAMBHU CHAK, KALYANPUR, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI. ………………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 03/ 14.07.2011 Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioners in this writ application has prayed for following relief- “That this is an application for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the Press communiqué issued in daily „Dainik Jaagran‟ of 29.3.2007 under the signature of respondent Director Primary Education, Bihar, Patna whereby and whereunder he has issued a direction to the appointing officers to 2 cancel the appointment of persons having the degree from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad and also for quashing the consequential order passed by the respondent Dist. Supdt. of Education, East Champaran and the respondent Block Development Officer, Kalyanpur whereby and whereunder directions have been given to the respondent Mukhiyas directing them to cancel the appointment of the petitioners as Panchayat Teachers and thereafter to make appointment from the merit list as per seniority from the persons below the writ petitioners. The petitioners further pray for issuance of consequential writ in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondent authorities to treat the degree of Madhyama Visarad obtained by the petitioners from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan to be legal and valid. The petitioners further pray for issuance of any other appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) for which they may be found entitled to under the law and in the facts and circumstances of this case.” Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the appointment of the petitioners on the post of Panchayat Teacher was made after following the prescribed procedure and as such the decision for termination of their service merely on the ground that the petitioners did not possess the requisite qualification is not only incorrect but also in violation of the principles of natural justice. In this context, he has submitted that all the 3 petitioners have passed Madhyama Visharad examination from Hindi Sahitya Sammellan, Allahabad which is a valid qualification equivalent to intermediate. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has submitted that the petitioners appointment on the post of Panchayat Teacher have been governed by the statutory Rules of Panchayat Teacher Appointment Rules-2006, they have statutory alternative remedy to file a complaint before the District Teachers Appellate Authority. Learned counsel for the State, addressing on merits, has submitted that the petitioners’ qualification of Madhyama Visharad acquired from Hindi Sahitya Sammellan, Allahabad, was not recognized by the Government of Bihar and such decision of the Government of Bihar has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Mamta Kumari and others reported in 2010(4) PLJR 318. Learned counsel for the petitioners in reply has submitted that the district Teachers Appellate Authority came to be established only in the year 2008, whereas this writ application was filed in the year 4 2007, soon after the service of the petitioners were terminated and has also explained that the decision of the Division Bench of this court in the case of Mamta Kumari(supra) will not govern the cases of these three petitioners, inasmuch as, they had already been appointed and were continuing in service prior to such judgment. In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioners seeking appointment on the post of Panchayat Teacher had to be qualified in terms of the essential qualification laid down in 2006 Rules. The petitioners claim that they were qualified for the post of Panchayat Teacher on the basis of their having passed the Madhyama Visharad examination from Hindi Sahitya Sammellan, Allahabad. The qualification of Madhyama Visharad acquired from Hindi Sahitya Sammellan, Allahabad for the purposes of appointment on the post of Panchayat Teacher has fallen for consideration in the case of Mamta Kumari(supra) and the Division Bench after considering all possible facets held that Hindi Sahitya Sammellan, Allahabad had no competence to conduct such examination nor 5 its degree of Madhyama Visharad was valid for appointment on the post of Panchayat Teacher. In that view of the matter, once the petitioners did not possess the requisite qualification, there would be no difficulty in holding that the appointment of the petitioners was ab initio void. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were already appointed and were continuing in service would also make no difference in the eye of law, inasmuch as, the disqualified person even if wrongly appointed can always be removed from service. The petitioners in fact have moved this Court without availing statutory alternative remedy under Article 18. The power of entertaining complaint relating to service conditions of Panchayat Teachers was earlier vested in the Block Development Officer and it was subsequently modified and entrusted to the District Teachers Appellate Authority. From the reading of the writ application, it would become clear that the petitioners had also not moved the concerned Block Development Officer before filing of 6 this writ application. In any event, if the petitioners want to demonstrate any discrimination as with regard to continuation of other persons in service on the post of Panchayat Teacher only on the basis of their also possessing the degree of Madhyama Visharad from Hindi Sahitya Sammellan, Allahabad they can approach the District Teachers Appellate Authority by filing a complaint in terms of Rule-18. The Authority in the event of filing of complaint by the petitioners individually or jointly would examine the grievance of the petitioners and would pass its order on merits instead of non-suiting the petitioners on the ground of delay/limitation. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)