IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6964 of 2007 Prabhat Kumar, son of Ramnarayan Prasad Yadav, resident of Village Takkipur, P.S. Fullidumar, Dist. Banka. -------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Secretary cum Commissioner, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The District Superintendent of Education (D.S.E.), Dist. Banka. 5. The Block Development Officer (B.D.O.) Block Fulli Dumar, P.S. Fulli Dumar, Dist. Banka. 6. The Block Education Extension Officer, Block Fulli Dumar, P.S. Fulli Dumar, Dist. Banka. 7. The Mukhiya namely Gram Panchayat Kaitha Block Fulli Dumar, P.S. Fulli Dumar, Dist. Banka. ---------- Respondents ----------- 2 19.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Assailing the order of termination of service of the petitioner dated 16.2.2007 as contained in Annexure-9, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that first of all the order is wholly without jurisdiction, inasmuch as, Mukhia has got no power to terminate the service of the petitioner from the post of Panchayat Shikshak. He has further submitted that even if the qualification of Teachers Training of the petitioner was not as prescribed under the Panchayat Teachers Appointment Rule, 2006, the petitioner still will have a right to continue in such employment because four 2 persons having exactly similar qualification are still continuing in service. In the considered opinion of this Court, if the Sukh Subidha Samiti of a Panchayat has been given power to select and appoint and such Sukh Subidha Samiti is headed by the Mukhia, there would be no anomaly in issuance of the consequential order of termination of service by the Mukhia if the petitioner was not even qualified as per 2006 Rules. In this context, counsel for the State has rightly placed reliance on Clause 8(3) of the 2006 Rules, which reads as follows:- ^^iapk;r f'k{kd ds fy;s%& 1- Hkkjr dk ukxfjd gks rFkk fcgkj jkT; ds fuoklh gksA 2- ljdkj }kjk ekU;rk izkIr f'k{k.k laLFkku ls mPprj ek/;fed@bUVjehfM,V vFkok vFkok led{k ijh{kk mRrh.kZ gksA 3- jk"V~h; v/;kid f'k{kk ifj"kn (N.C.T.E.) }kjk ekU;rk izkIr izf'k{k.k laLFkku ls nks o"khZ; f'k{kd izf'k{k.k fMIyksek ;k lfVZfQdsV vFkok izkjfEHkd f'k{kk esa Lukrd ¼ch0,y0,M½A ijUrq bl fu;ekoyh ds v/khu izFke fu;kstu esa oSls mEehnokjksa dk Hkh fu;kstu fd;k tk ldsxk] tks ljdkj }kjk ekU;rk izkIr fo|ky; ls eSfV~d vFkok led{k ijh{kk mrh.kZ gks rFkk jk"V~h; v/;kid f'k{kk ifj"kn (N.C.T.E.) vf/kfu;e ykxw gksus ds iwoZ ekU;rk izkIr izf'k{k.k fo|ky;@egkfo|ky; ls nks o"kksZa dk f'k{kd izf'k{k.k ijh{kk ikl gksA** (Underlining for emphasis) From the underlined portion of the aforementioned Rules, it would be clear that a candidate in order to be qualified for the purpose of appointment on the post of 3 Panchayat Shikshak has to be essentially undergo and complete the Teachers Training Course of two years. Admittedly, the petitioner has undergone Teachers Training Course of one year and, therefore, the petitioner, on the face of record, does not possess the requisite qualification and as such, the decision of the Mukhia to terminate the service of such person does not suffer from any error. As with regard to the alleged discrimination, the persons named in paragraph no.17 of the writ application reading as follows:- “17. That it is relevant to state here that the following candidates who have been appointed as Primary Teacher in different school have obtained one year Teachers training as like the petitioner and still they are working in different school, details are given here under:- I. Pramod Kumar Mishra, son of Janardan Mishra he is posted in Primary School Jamdaha under Banhaity Panchayat distt. Samastipur. II. Samit Kumar son of late Chhedi Tanti he is posted in Primary school Gazipur under Gazipur Panchayat Prachand Tarapur Distt. Munger. 4 III. Anirudh Kumar Singh son of Narayan Pd. Singh he is posted in Primary school Amma Bazar under Bangama Panchayat Prakhand Tetia Bambar Dist. Munger. IV. Gorav Kumar son of not known he is posted in newly constituted school Navtolia Panchayat Durmatta Distt. Munger.” all that can be done is that since they do not belong to the same Panchayat in which the petitioner’s appointment was made, the Collector of Banka district would look into this aspect of the matter and if he would find that alike the petitioner, the aforementioned four persons, despite having undergone one year of Teachers Training Course, have been appointed and are also being allowed to continue in service as a Panchayat Teacher he would take necessary action by directing the Panchayat Secretary of respective Gram Panchayat where these persons are working, to file a complaint against them before the District Teachers Appellate Authority, Banka and the said Authority having issued notice to the aforesaid four persons as also affording than opportunity of hearing as also on the other concerned persons will pass necessary orders 5 as with regard to validity of their appointment and continuation in service on the post of Panchayat Teacher. The plea of equality or allegation of discrimination has to be essentially a positive concept. Merely because someone was wrongly and illegally appointed or has been allowed to continue in service despite his not possessing the prescribed qualification cannot be a ground to perpetuate the same illegality. This aspect of the matter has been considered at length by the Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar State of Bihar Vs. Upendra Narayan Singh & Ors. reported in 2009(5)SCC 65. Thus following the ratio of the aforesaid case this Court will have no difficulty in upholding the impugned order of termination of service of the petitioner. In the result, this writ application being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Collector of Banka district for its strict compliance. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)