Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 782 (PAT)

Ranjeet Kumar v. State Of Bihar

2007-04-18

S.K.SINHA

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard Ms. Shashi Priya Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Shyam Kishore Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. Through this writ application, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the letter no. 37 dated 2.12.2006, whereby and whereunder the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Panchayat Sikshak has been cancelled. , 3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that after going through the requisite selection process, the petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Sikshak as per letter no. 27 dated 30th November, 2006, as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ application, and pursuant to the same the petitioner joined on the said post on 7th of December 2006 before the Principal, Primary School, Sathiyari, who duly accepted his joining. 4. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that he did not possess the requisite qualification of passing of Intermediate Examination, is absolutely untenable as it is not in dispute that the petitioner obtained the certificate of passing of the Intermediate Examination in vocational course, granted by the Bihar Intermediate Education Council, Patna vide Certificate No. 969855 dated 28th October, 2003, as contained In Annexure-2 to the writ application. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the Press Communique No. 56/96 dated 4th September, 1996, issued under the signature of the Secretary, Bihar Intermediate Education Council, Patna, as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ application, whereby it was communicated that passing of Intermediate Examination and passing of Intermediate Examination in vocational course are equivalent. As such, the cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Panchayat Sikshak is incorrect and the order cancelling the appointment of the petitioner deserves to be quashed. 6. The learned Government Advocate has fairly submitted that in light of the decision taken by the Bihar Intermediate Education Council, Patna, as contained in the aforesaid Press Communique No. 56/ 96 dated 4.9.1996, the order of cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Panchayat Teacher could not be sustained in law. 7. 6. The learned Government Advocate has fairly submitted that in light of the decision taken by the Bihar Intermediate Education Council, Patna, as contained in the aforesaid Press Communique No. 56/ 96 dated 4.9.1996, the order of cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Panchayat Teacher could not be sustained in law. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances aforementioned, as well as, the submissions made on behalf of the parties, the order of cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Panchayat Sikshak vide Memo No. 37 dated 2.12.2006 is, hereby, quashed. 8. At this stage it is very interesting to note that the petitioner was appointed on 30th of November, 2006, pursuant to which he joined on the post of Panchayat Teacher on 7th December, 2006, and thereafter, by the impugned letter no. 37 dated 2.12.2006 his appointment was cancelled. The date 2.12.2006 is not understandable. 9. Accordingly, the writ application is allowed to the extent indicated above. 10. It is needless to say that after rejoining the post, the petitioner will be entitled to claim for the admissible salary etc. with effect from the date his appointment was cancelled till the date of his rejoining on the post of Panchayat Teacher.