IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11830 of 2010 1. BABITA KUMARI D/O SRI YOGENDRA BHAGAT AND W/O SRI SUNIL MALAKAR R/O VILL.- FARIANI, P.S. SRINAGAR, DISTT.- PURNEA, AT PRESENT WORKING AS SHIKSHA MITRA AT MIDDLE SCHOOL, FARIANI, DISTT.- PURNEA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT TEACHER EMPLOYMENT APPELLATE AUTHORITY, PURNEA 3. THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF BIHAR, DEPARTMENT OF (PRIMARY AND ADULT EDUCATION) IN HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE JOINT SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF BIHAR, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE DIRECTOR OF PRIMARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 6. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, PURNEA 7. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, SRI NAGAR 8. THE HEADMASTER AT MIDDLE SCHOOL, PARIAHANI ----------- 02. 23.03.2011 Prayer of the petitioner has been rejected by the District Teachers Employment Authority, Purnea upholding her removal as such on the post of a Panchayat teacher merely on the ground that the petitioner did not acquire intermediate degree within thirty three months of her appointment on the post of a Panchayat Shiksha Mitra. Admitted position is that petitioner has passed her intermediate on 31.5.2006 in second division, a fact not in dispute. However, the tribunal has held that since she failed to obtain intermediate degree within thirty three months of her appointment, which expired on 25.3.2006, she did not have the requisite qualification to hold the post. This Court has held in many a cases including the 2 case of Indu Devi that acquisition of intermediate degree even beyond 33 months will not be a ground for removal of the appointee on the basis of circular issued by the State Government. If the necessary qualification has been obtained even though beyond the so-called period of 33 months, that cannot be a ground for removal. Such view has also been upheld in other decision as well. If that be so, then the rationale and the reason given by the Appellate Authority, Purnea for upholding the removal of the petitioner cannot be sustained. The impugned order contained in Annexure-5 is quashed. Writ application is allowed with a direction upon the respondents to reinstate the petitioner who shall continue on the post since reason for her removal is not sustainable in law. It goes without saying that since the reason for removal is held to be illegal, petitioner would be entitled to all the benefits including salary from the date of her removal till the date of reinstatement. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)