IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13520 of 2010 1. REKHA DEVI W/O RAJESH KUMAR MISHRA R/O MOH KHARAIYA BASATI, WARD NO.13, P.S. & DISTT-ARARIA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR , THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION , HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE ARARIA 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION ARARIA 5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER KURSA KANTA, DISTT-ARARIA 6. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER KURSA KANTA, DISTT-ARARIA 7. THE MUKHIYA , GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ GAGIR PARASI, P.S.KURSA KANTA, DISTT-ARARIA 8. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ GAGIR PARASI, P.S.KURSA KANTA, DISTT-ARARIA ----------- For the Petitioner :M/s Ram Sagar Singh & Mukesh Kumar Rana For the State : Mrs. Mohini Kumari, A.C. to S.C.IX 2 8.10.2010 The facts lie in a short compass and as such with the consent of the parties, the writ petition has been heard for disposal at this stage itself. Eighteen persons were selected for appointment as Panchayat Teacher including the petitioner. The Block Development Officer, Kursa Kanta, District- Araria, conducted an ex parte enquiry and without notice to the petitioner and her like, cancelled the entire selection process. The petitioner and her like filed a writ petition in this Court being CWJC No. 680 of 2008. This Court, after examining the matter, set aside the order of the Block Development Officer and by - 2 - order dated 12.2.2008 directed the District Magistrate, Araria to consider the issue of legality of appointment of the petitioner in accordance with law and take a fresh decision in the matter. Accordingly, the matter was taken up by the Collector, Araria in Misc. Case no. 3/2008-2009 and by order dated 3.12.2008, the District Magistrate held the selection to be bad and quashed the same. One of the persons, who was similarly situated to the petitioner came to this Court in CWJC No. 11421 of 2009, which was allowed on 30.10,2009. The order of the District Magistrate was set aside and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated . This Court in the said judgment dated 30.9.2009 passed in CWJC No. 11421 of 2009 further held that the judgment would inure to the benefits of all others similarly situated persons but this later part of the judgment was cancelled in LPA No. 13 of 2010 by judgment and order dated 25.1.2010 but the rest of the order was not interfered with. Having perused the order of the Collector-cum- District Magistrate, as impugned, as also the judgment of this Court in the case of Ramsharan Mandal (supra) being CWJC No. 11421 of 2009, I find that the facts are similar and the similar judgment is called for . Thus, in my view, on parity of reasons and parity of facts I am constraint to hold that the order of the Collector, as passed in Misc. Case no. 3 of 2008-2009 being dated 3.12.2008 cannot be sustained and is quashed. The petitioner consequently would be entitled to be reinstated forthwith and she would be entitled to full remuneration for the period she has worked. - 3 - With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. singh (Navaniti Prasad Singh,J)