IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1883 of 2009 ABHAYA KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 6.2.2009 Heard Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.S.Mishra, learned A.C. to G.P.X. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ application is as against the order of termination of his service dated 26.4.2007, whereby and whereunder his appointment on the post of Panchayat Shikshak appears to have been cancelled only on the ground that his selection was made on the basis of a qualification of vocational course. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that such order and in fact the issue of vocational course as such being a course being the relevant qualification of Panchayat Shikshak has been gone into by this Court in C.W.J.C.No. 4878/2007 and its analogous cases as also the resultant L.P.A.No. 469/2008 and it has been held that the qualification of vocational course was fully complying the requirement of the educational qualification for a post of 2 Panchayat teacher. The counsel in fact has also invited the attention of this Court that after the said issue was made final by the court of law the authorities themselves have realized the mistake and have implemented the decision of the Court by issuing an order dated 9.9.2008, as contained in Annexure 9. There is no doubt that the services of the petitioner were sought to be terminated without any show cause notice to him as would be apparent from the tenor of the impugned order dated 26.4.2007. Counsel for the State in fact is not in a position to also justify the said order of termination because when some instruction of the D.S.E. was issued on 5.4.2007 to terminate the service of the petitioner on the ground that he did not possess the requisite qualification, petitioner being an appointed Shiksha Mitra and absorbed as Panchayat Teacher on the basis of an appointment letter dated 23.2.2006, was at least required to be given a show cause notice before termination of his service. 3 That having been not done, this Court would not find it difficult to quash the impugned order dated 26.4.2007 which, as stated above, is in blatant violation of the principles of natural justice. The next question would be what would the fate of the petitioner as would appear from the judgment of this Court and the resultant decision, as referred above, being the order of the Human Resources Department, wherein the qualification of vocational course has been held to be valid. For deciding this very aspect, this Court would only remit the matter back to the District Superintendent of Education for passing an appropriate order who must decide the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It is, however, made clear that in case the post of Panchayat Shikshak on which the petitioner was working has been subsequently filled up by a new appointment of any other person the same will not be called in question and/or disturbed in that event the respondent will make effort to 4 accommodate him to any other vacant post. However, if the post has not been filled up and it is shown vacant the petitioner will be immediately reinstated back in service. The petitioner, however, in such event will not be entitled for any salary for the period he has remained out of service i.e. 26.4.2007 to the date of his reinstatement in service. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/