IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3287 of 2009 SUSHMA SWARAJYA, WIFE OF RAJESH KUMAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – LAKHMINIYA, PANCHAYAT – BALIA LAKHMINIYA 3, BLOCK – BALIA, P.S. – BALIA, DISTRICT – BEGUSARAI ………………… PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH COMMISSIONER – CUM – SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, BEGUSARAI 4. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, BALIA, DISTRICT – BEGUSARAI 5. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, BALIA, DISTRICT – BEGUSARAI 6. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, BALIA LAKHMINIA PANCHAYAT, BLOCK – BALIA, P.S. – BALIA, DISTRICT – BEGUSARAI 7. THE MUKHIYA, BALIA LAKHMINIA 3 PANCHAYAT BLOCK- BALIA, P.S. – BALIA, DISTRICT – BEGUSARAI. ……………….. RESPONDENTS ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate For the State: Mr. Kumar Pankaj, AC to SC 7 ******* 03. 08.07.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner was appointed on the post of Panchayat Teacher and joined in March, 2007. She was removed from her service vide order, contained in Memo No. 09, dated 06.11.2008. The reason for terminating the petitioner from service was non-fulfillment of the requisite educational qualification for being appointed as Trained Teacher. Petitioner herself has annexed her 2 certificate, which shows that she had done one year’s training in Nursery Course from All India Early Childhood Care and Education, New Delhi. In the Counter Affidavit, it has been stated that rule 4, sub-rule 9 of Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Employment and Service Condition) Rules, 2006 provides that two years’ Teacher Training will be requisite training for being appointed as Trained Teacher. Since the petitioner did not posses that qualification and it was subsequently noticed, she has been removed from her service. In the Writ Application, petitioner has also prayed for a direction to Respondents to make payment of arrears of salary from October, 2008 till the date. As stated in the Counter Affidavit, it has already been paid to the petitioner. However, the petitioner’s counsel submits that still two months’ honorarium have not been paid. Considering the fact that non-fulfillment of the requisite educational qualification for being appointed as Trained Teacher was the reason for terminating the petitioner from service, she can not claim to continue on the post. However, it was essential that she should have been noticed as there is no denial in the Counter 3 Affidavit to the statement made in para 27 of the Writ Application. Despite there being this lacuna to consider the fact that petitioner’s appointment as a trained Teacher itself was an illegal appointment, as she did not fulfill the requisite qualification criteria, I do not find any reason for quashing of the impugned order, contained in Memo No. 09, dated 06.11.2008. Petitioner has paid her salary for the period she has worked. For all these reasons, this application is dismissed. SKM (Mridula Mishra, J.)