IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5856 of 2009 AJAY KUMAR MANDAL & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2/ 12/05/2009 Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission and is permitted to replace the designation of respondent no.2 as Principal Secretary. Let necessary correction be made in the cause title accordingly. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. Advertisement was issued for appointment on the post of Panchayat Teachers inter alia in different Gram Panchayats in district- Banka. Certain persons possessing the qualification of vocational intermediate course were appointed. The State Government in the advertisement laying down the qualifications did not consider it prudent before initiating the process of appointment to clearly specify the acceptable qualifications and issues of equivalence. After such appointments had been made, the respondents believing in the principle of acting first and thinking later, decided to reopen the issues of the prescribed qualifications for appointment and issues of equivalence terminated the appointment of persons holding Intermediate 2 qualification in a vocational course. Those terminated came to this Court in a writ application which held that a vocational intermediate qualification was equivalent to a regular intermediate qualification and, therefore, their termination was invalid. On challenge by the respondents, the appellate court upheld the order of the writ court. In the meantime, after removing such persons appointed on the basis of vocational intermediate qualification the respondents appointed persons like the petitioners. When those, whose orders of termination for holding intermediate qualification were set aside by this Court, and the respondents were obliged to consider them for reappointment, the respondents now terminated the persons like petitioners whom they had appointed in lieu of those terminated. The entire imbroglio is the administrative creation of the respondents themselves. This Court is satisfied that there are no legal issues for consideration at this stage. If the respondents were in such a hurry to make fresh appointments after termination without waiting for orders of this Court when those aggrieved had already preferred applications before this Court, it is for the respondents to find the solution of this administrative imbroglio. This Court is satisfied that on the conduct of 3 the respondents themselves the petitioner cannot be allowed to suffer for their administrative lapses. Let respondent No.2 examine the entire issue and take a decision in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order after hearing all concerned so that if the occasion arises, judicial review of the order is facilitated. Let the same be done within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The notice dated 21.10.2008 requiring the petitioners to file a show cause merges into the present order. The writ application stands disposed in the aforesaid terms. KC (Navin Sinha, J.)