IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5346 of 2009 Smt. Saroj Bharti, wife of Sri Saral Ram, Resident of Village – Rudalpur, P.S. Kateya, District – Gopalganj at present Assistant Teacher, “Shiksha Mitra” (Panchayat Teacher) Raj Middle School, Rudrapur, Kateya, District – Gopalganj ……………. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 2. The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna 3. The District Magistrate, Gopalganj 4. The District Education Superintendent, Gopalganj 5. Member, District Teachers Appointment Appellate Tribunal, Gopalganj 6. The Block Development Officer, Kateya Block District – Gopalganj 7. The Block Education Extension Officer, Kateya, Gopalganj 8. The Headmaster, Primary School, Kotawa Khas, Kateya, Gopalganj 9. Mukhiya, Panchayat Raj Rudrapur, Kateya, Gopalganj 10. Smt. Bimlawati Devi, W/o Sri Manoj Ram, Shiksha Mitra (Panchayat Teacher), Raj Middle School, Rudrapur, Kateya, District – Gopalganj …………….. Respondents ---------------------------------- with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5377 of 2009 Kumari Sweta, wife of Shri Shyam Kishore, resident of Village – Babhani Kateya, P.S. – Kateya, District – Gopalganj at present Assistant Teacher, “ Shiksha Mitra” (Panchayat Teacher) Primary School Kotawa Khash Anchal Kateya, District – Gopalganj ………………….. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 2. The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna 3. The District Magistrate, Gopalganj 4. The District Education Superintendent, Gopalganj 5. Member, District Teachers Appointment Appellate Tribunal, Gopalganj 6. The Block Development Officer, Kateya Block District – 2 Gopalganj 7. The Block Education Extension Officer, Kateya, Gopalganj 8. The Headmaster, Primary School, Kotawa Khas, Kateya, Gopalganj 9. Mukhiya, Panchayat Raj Rudrapur, Kateya, Gopalganj Smt. Bimlawati Devi, W/o Sri Manoj Ram, Shiksha Mitra (Panchayat Teacher), Raj Middle School, Rudrapur, Kateya, District – Gopalganj ………………….. Respondents ---------------------------------- With Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14640 of 2009 1. Neetu Pandey W/O Prabhakar Kumar Pandey, Vill- Jhilwaniya, P.O Gaura, P.S Kateya, Distt- Gopalganj 2. Bimalawati Devi W/O Manoj Ram Vill. & P.O Rudrapur, P.S. - Kateya, Distt- Gopalganj …………………… Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate, Gopalganj 3. The District Superintendent Of Education Gopalganj 4. The Block Development Officer Kateya, Gopalganj 5. The District Teacher Appointment Appellate Tribunal Gopalganj 6. Kumari Sweta W/O Shyam Kishore Dewedi Vill Babhani, P.O Rudrapur, P.S Kateya, Distt - Gopalganj 7. Saroj Bharati W/O Motilal Ram @ Saral Ram Resident Of Rudrapur, P.O Rudrapur, P.S- Kateya, Distt- Gopalganj ……………………. Respondents ---------------------------------- In C.W.J.C. No. 5346 of 2009 & C.W.J.C. No. 5377 of 2009 For the Petitioner Mr. Sanati Kr. Mishra, Advocate Mr. Shashi Bhushan, Advocate For the State: Mr. Shantanu Kumar, AC to AAG-VI In C.W.J.C. No. 14640 of 2010 For the Petitioner: Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh, Advocate For the Respondent No. 6 & 7: Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Navjot Yeshu, Advocate For the State: Mr. Gautam Bose, AAG-8, Sr. Advocate Mr. Ajay Kuamr, AC to AAG-8 *********** 3 05. 19.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. Three Writ Applications are heard together and being disposed of by a common order, as the parties are common and the issues are inter- connected. In first two Writ Applications, petitioners have challenged the order dated 09.04.2009, passed by the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Tribunal, Gopalganj, whereby the termination of petitioners, Kumari Sweta and Saroj Bharti, by the Block Development Officer, Kateya, vide order dated 08.08.2005, contained in letter no. 977, has been affirmed and the appointment of Bimlawati Devi as well as Neetu Pandey (C.W.J.C. No. 14640 of 2009) is held to be legal. In C.W.J.C. No. 14640 of 2009, Neetu Pandey and Bimlawati Devi are the Writ Petitioners. They have challenged the order, contained in letter no. 2254, dated 03.09.2009, passed by the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Tribunal, Gopalganj in Appeal filed by Kumari Sweta, challenging the appointment of Neetu Pandey and Bimlawati Devi and also challenged the order of their termination passed 4 by Block Development Officer, dated 08.08.2005. In C.W.J.C. No. 14640 of 2009 had been filed by the Writ Petitioners for payment of their arrears of salary. Facts as revealed in this Writ Applications, is that Kumari Sweta and Saroj Bharti were appointed as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra on 10.05.2005 being selected by the Sukh Suvidha Committee. Subsequently, they filed Writ Applications vide C.W.J.C. No. 1770 of 2007 for a direction to make payment of their arrear and current salary. The Writ Application was disposed of and the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Tribunal was directed to look into the matter. Prior to that, the appointment of these two petitioners had been terminated by the Block Development Officer on the ground that they did not fulfill the eligibility criteria. When the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal, the Tribunal did not only consider the salary matters, but also affirmed the termination of these two Writ Petitioners. What had happened that on account of termination of Kumari Sweta and Saroj Bharti by the Block Development Officer Order, contained in letter no. 977, dated 08.08.2005, Neetu Pandey and Bimlawati Devi were appointed on the post. 5 From the Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State in C.W.J.C. No. 14640 of 2009, it has been stated that Neetu Pandey and Bimlawati Devi were appointed without following the procedure for appointment, as mentioned in the guidelines. As per the guidelines, for appointment of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra in case any vacancy occurs on the post of Panchayat, the procedure for selection has to be restarted and only on selection process being completed, any appointment could be made. In the present case, no such process was initiated. Simply two applications of Neetu Pandey and Bimlawati Devi were entertained by the Mukhiya and Panchayat Secretary and they were appointed. Bimlawati Devi at the relevant time was the Member of School Shikshak Samiti and on being selected, she resigned from the post and joined as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra. There is no denial of this fact. From the facts, it is apparent that appointment of Neetu Pandey and Bimlawati Devi was not in accordance with law. However, they continued on the post and they claim that subsequently, they were absorbed on the post of Panchayat Teacher. Their further claim is that since they were absorbed 6 on the post of Panchayat Teacher under the provisions of rule 20 of Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006, they could not have been removed on the basis of order passed in the appeal, preferred by Kumari Sweta, contained in letter no. 2254, dated 03.03.2009. Another ground taken by Neetu Pandey and Bimlawati Devi is that the impugned order contained in letter no. 2254, dated 03.09.2009, amount to review of earlier order passed by the Tribunal dated 09.04.2009 in the earlier appeal entertained by the Tribunal pursuant to the decision of the High Court. The impugned order contained in letter no. 2254, dated 03.09.2009 has been passed by Tribunal in case of Neetu Pandey and Bimlawati Devi in the light of the order passed by the LPA Bench and also the resolution of the State Government issued in the year 2008 with regard to reinstatement of terminated Panchayat Shiksha Mitra, on the ground that they did not have requisite qualification having less than 45 per cent marks in Intermediate or having less than Intermediate qualification. The LPA Bench has decided that the Panchayat Shiksha Mitra removed on these two ground should be reinstated in 7 case they have enhanced their qualification within the 33 months of initial appointment, but in case the termination is on the ground of less than 45 per cent marks they should also be reinstated. Kumari Sweta and Saroj Bharti came within the category, whose termination was on account of having less than 45 per cent marks in Intermediate. There case is covered by the Government Resolution and the order passed by the LPA Bench. As such giving benefit of these two provisions, they were directed to be reinstated and the same order is under challenged in C.W.J.C. No. 14640 of 2000. I find that the ground taken regarding review is also not applicable in this case as both these orders have been passed in two different appeals, not in one appeal. So far the ground taken by the Neetu Pandey and Bimlawati Devi in the Writ Applications as well as respondent in C.W.J.C. No. 5377 of 2009 and 5346 of 2009, regarding the writ petitioners having not challenged their order of termination, passed by the Block Development Officer has also got no merit, considering the fact that under the Guidelines, relating to appointment of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra, only District Magistrate is vested with jurisdiction for 8 passing any order of termination. Block Development Officer not being a competent authority could not have passed such order. Though this point has not been considered by the Tribunal, neither raised by the petitioner before the Tribunal but while sitting in the Writ Jurisdiction, this Court will look into all law points in the issue relevant for deciding the issues. I find that the termination order of Kumari Sweta and Saroj Bharti, passed by the Block Development Officer is an illegal order and without jurisdiction. On the basis of that order, these two writ petitioners have been removed and that removal order was also affirmed by the Tribunal when the Writ Application preferred by these writ petitioner for payment of salary, matter was remanded to the Tribunal. Tribunal going beyond its jurisdiction has affirmed the illegal termination order of Kumari Sweta and Saroj Bharti. For all these reasons, stated above, I find that the order under challenged in C.W.J.C. No. 5346 of 2009 and 5377 of 2009, passed by the Member, District Teachers Appointment Appellate Tribunal, dated 09.04.2009 is fit to be quashed. So far the order under challenged in C.W.J.C. No. 14640 of 9 2009, contained in letter no. 2254, dated 03.09.2009, passed by the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Tribunal, Gopalganj, it needs no interference. The first two Writ Applications are allowed. The writ petitioners are directed to be reinstated and they will be entitled for their salary for the period they had earlier worked prior to their termination and also with effect from the date they will again join. So far the period in between is concerned, Neetu Pandey and Bimlawati Devi are entitled for payment of salary because they have discharge their duties as a Teacher for this period and no one can be allowed to work for gretis. They are entitled to be paid their salary for this period. First two Writ Applications are allowed. The last one is dismissed. SKM (Mridula Mishra, J.)