IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11579 of 2010 1. KAMLESH KUMAR S/O RAM BRIKSH MISTRI R/O VILL.- DHIBARI CHAK, P.O.- BHADOKHARA, P.S.- MUFFASSIL, DISTT.- NAWADAH Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PANCHAYAT NIYOJAN COMMITTEE BHADOKHARA P.S.- MUFFASSIL, DISTT.- NAWADAH 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NAWADAH 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, NAWADAH 5. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENTION OFFICER, NAWADAH 6. THE PANCHAYAT SACHIV, PANCHAYAT BHADOKHARA P.S.- MUFFASIL, DISTT.- NAWADAH ----------- 2 6.8.2010 Petitioner was selected as Panchayat Teacher under backward category in the year 2006 in Gram Panchayat Bhadokhara, District- Nawadah. Having been duly selected, petitioner was issued appointment letter dated 2.4.2007 and was posted in Primary School. Petitioner joined and started working but within two months, the selection of all Panchayat Teachers, as was made along with the petitioner, was cancelled. Later on Block Development Officer enquired into the matter and so far as trained teachers were concerned, he passed order holding their appointments to be valid but so far as untrained teachers like the petitioner were concerned, he passed no orders. Petitioner then moved this Court and this Court directed the petitioner to take up the matter before the tribunal. Petitioner thus approached the Teacher Appointment Appellate Tribunal, Nawadah, who considered the entire matter and by order dated 15.3.2010 held 2 that there was no irregularity or illegality in selection and the appointment of the petitioner. That made the petitioner entitled to reinstatement but the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the tribunal wherein instead of ordering reinstatement , the tribunal has held that if the vacancy ,as caused by petitioner’s removal has been considered in the second round of recruitment in the year 2008, then the petitioner would not be reinstated .He would be considered afresh. Petitioner states that if his termination was wrongful then as a matter of course, his reinstatement has to be ordered specially when the appointments have not been finally made . Petitioner states that appointment letters are to be issued on 13th of August. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State, from the order of the tribunal itself it is clear that the petitioner’s appointment was neither illegal nor wrong, that is the finding of the trial as well. If that be so ipso facto , the termination of the petitioner has been in the year 2007 was itself illegal. If that was illegal then the petitioner cannot be deprived of his service as a Panchayat Teacher. Any one, who has come in his vacancy will have to make wait for the petitioner. Fortunately, in the present case till date vacancy has not been filled up though effective steps have been taken only.That being the position, I direct that the petitioner would be deemed to be in service and consequently there would be no vacancy to be 3 filled up in respect of backward class to which petitioner belongs and against which he was selected. Petitioner would now be given fresh posting order by the Panchayat treating him to be in service all along for the purposes of continuity of service and seniority but the petitioner would be entitled to half of his wages for the period he has remained out of his service for no fault of his . The Panchayat Secretary and the Mukhiya would ensure proper and prompt compliance of this order. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stand disposed of. singh ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)