IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9026 of 2010 SHATRUGHAN KUMAR SAH, S/O SRI RAMSAGAR SAH, R/O VILLAGE SADHPUR, BALI, P.O. LEJIAR, P.S. KOPA, DISTRICT SARAN (CHAPRA). Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY , HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,GOVT. OF BIHAR,PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,GOVT. OF BIHAR,PATNA. 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,SAMASTIPUR. 5. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, DARBHANGA DIVISION, DARBHANGA. 6. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION,SAMASTIPUR. 7. THE AREA EDUCATION OFFICER,SAMASTIPUR. 8. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, SARAI RANJAN, DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR. ----------- For the petitioner: M/S. Shyama Prasad Mukherji, Sr. Advocate and Shanti Pratap. For the State : Mr. Neeraj Nandan, Govt. Pleader No.20. _______ 02. 10.2.2011 Challenge is to the order contained in Annexure-1 dated 29th April, 2010 by virtue of which appointment of the petitioner on the post of a primary teacher has been annulled when the petitioner was duly selected by the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC) and his case was recommended for appointment as far back as in the year 1999. Annexure-1 is further based on the direction of the Director, Primary Education, which is Annexure-2 to the writ application wherein stand has been taken that after coming into force the 2006 Rules relating to appointment of teachers at the Block/Panchayat level, petitioner could not be appointed or allowed to join in the year 2007 to be precise 5.12.2007 by the concerned respondent. Stand of the State is that the Rule has undergone a change. 2 Method and methodology of appointment has undergone a change. The earlier selection made in favour of the petitioner can be of no avail specially when he has not joined or was allowed to join prior to the coming of the new rule in the year 2006. Any fresh appointment on any post of which petitioner was a claimant will be governed by the new rule. There may be some merit in the submission or the stand taken by the State but in view of the decision which has been rendered by a learned single Judge in the case of Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar and others, reported in 2010 (4) PLJR 710 which is being pressed into service by learned senior counsel for the petitioner as the issues were similar in nature, this Court is compelled to hold that the present petitioner cannot be treated otherwise and he is entitled to similar relief which was granted in the case of Sanjay Kumar (supra). Learned counsel for the State submits that decision is there and the rationale or reasoning has been provided therein. The only distinguishing factor is that the appointment of that petitioner had not been accepted whereas in the present case petitioner was allowed to join. Otherwise the circumstances are identical. In view of the decision in the case of Sanjay Kumar (supra) the impugned orders contained in Annexure-1 and 2 are quashed. The writ application is allowed. Petitioner is permitted to continue on the post on which he has joined as if Annexures 1 & 2 were never passed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)