IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13514 of 2010 1. CHANDRAWATI KUMARI W/O ANUJ PRASAD R/O VILL BRAHMASTHAN, P.O.BHOKILAPAR, P.S.HILSA, DISTT-NALANDA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR , THROUGH THE SECRETARY, PRIMARY AND ADULT EDUCATION , HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER NALANDA 3. THE B.D.O. HILSA, NALANDA 4. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER HILSA, NALANDA 5. THE HEAD MASTER, PRATHMIK VIDYALAYA BRAHMASTHAN, HILSA, BLOCK, NALANDA 6. PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ YOGIPUR, HILSA, NALANDA 7. MUKHIYA , GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ null YOGIPUR, HILSA, NALANDA 8. ANITA SINHA W/O SRI RAVI BHUSHAN KUMAR VILL YOGIPUR, P.O.YOGIPUR, P.S.HILSA, DISTT-NALANDA 9. SHRI BRAJ NANDAN SAHAY MEMBER, ZILA SHIKSHAK NIYOJAN APPEALIYA PRADHIKAR, BIHAR SHARIF, NALANDA ----------- 2 11/04/2011 Annexure-4 is the order dated 2.6.2010 passed by the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority, Nalanda at Biharsharif which has been challenged by the writ petitioner in the present writ application. According to the petitioner, respondent no. 8 Anita Sinha did not have valid Intermediate degree and, therefore, she ought not to have been appointed or - 2 - retained in service as a Panchayat teacher. Petitioner came to be appointed after her removal since she had no Intermediate degree. He further contends that the so called Intermediate degree which is possessed by the private respondent is Up Shastri obtained from Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University and the Ministry of Human Resources Development Department has de-recognised such degree after the year 2008. Learned counsel is not correct in making such a submission in view of the fact that the High Court has already held in many a decisions including C.W.J.C. No. 10802 of 2009 that any notification withdrawing the recognition of such degree will be prospective in nature and will not be retrospective. Admittedly, the private respondent has obtained the degree prior to the year 2008 and, therefore, the order for her removal as such has been rightly declared to be illegal by the Appellate Authority. Appointment of the petitioner too has to go since she occupied the post vacated by Anita Sinha. Removal of private respondent in the very first place was misplaced and the Appellate Authority - 3 - has only restored that position by ordering or holding that Anita Sinha had a right to continue on the post as well as claim payment for the period in question. In absence of any infirmity as such with the reasonings given, no interference is warranted with the impugned order by this Court. This writ application is dismissed. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)