IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 1113 of 2010 1. DHARMENDRA MAHTO S/O KUSHESHWAR MAHTO R/O VILL PIDHAULI,P.S.TEGHRA,DISTT-BEGUSARAI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR , DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY EDUCATION GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BEGUSARAI 4. THE DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER BEGUSARAI 5. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION BEGUSARAI 6. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER TEGHRA, DISTT-BEGUSARAI 7. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER BLOCK-TEGHRA, DISTT- BEGUSARAI 8. THE MUKHIYA PANCHAYAT RAJ null PIDHAULI, BLOCK-TEGHRA, DISTT- BEGUSARAI 9. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY PANCHAYAT PIDHAULI, BLOCK-TEGHRA, DISTT- BEGUSARAI 10. THE HEADMASTER MIDDLE SCHOOL PIDHAULI, PANCHAYAT- PIDHAULI,BLOCK-TEGHRA,DISTT-BEGUSARAI *** For the petitioner : M/s Nakul Kumar Jamuar & Pramod Kumar Mishra, Advocates For the respondents : Mr Gajendra Nath Ojha, AC to GA 2 *** 2 23.06.2010 The petitioner was appointed as Shiksha Mitra in the year, 2003. He later became a permanent Panchayat Teacher. His educational qualification was Up Shastri from Kameshwar Singh Sanskrit University, Darbhanga. That was treated as equivalent to Intermediate. State Government, in the Department of Human Resources, then issued letter dated 15.11.2007 whereby it took a stand that Up Shastri, though equivalent to Intermediate, would not be a qualification for appointment as Panchayat Teacher. In view of the aforesaid, the appointment of petitioner has been terminated by the respondent-Headmaster by 2 communication dated 20.08.2009. On behalf of petitioner, my attention has been drawn to several cases decided by this Court including CWJC No 12456 of 2008 wherein the same very circular was in question and has been set aside. It has been, inter alia, held that a decision can only be taken prospective and not retrospective. In other words, when the petitioner was selected, he was duly eligible and qualified. That eligibility could not be nullified after several years. The decision if at all could apply prospectively to future recruitment but not to recruitment already made. In that view of the matter, nothing remains to be decided. The impugned order, as contained in Annexure-2 dated 20.08.2009, is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. Petitioner would be deemed to be continuing in service with all consequential benefits. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)