Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. 2. A common question is involved in all these writ applications and, therefore, they are being disposed by one order. 3. The State Government framed the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 on 1.7.2006. Rule 8 provides the qualificatioins inter alia for appointment on the post of Panchayat Sikshak. The minimum educational qualification prescribed for appointment on the said post is a higher secondary/intermediate or its equivalent degree from a Government recognized institution. 4. The petitioners were appointed as Panchayat Sikshak under the Rules. They were required to teach students from Class-1 to 5. 5. There are no allegations of any illegality in their appointment process. They joined duties as Panchayat Sikshak and started to impart education. On 5.4.2007, after the selection process was complete and appointments made, a question was sought to be raised by the respondent authorities if a person holding an intermediate qualification in a vocational course was eligible for appointment. Guidance was sought in the matter. Even before the guidance was forthcoming on 11.4.2007, the appointment of the petitioners was terminated on the aforesaid ground. 6. Thereafter the respondents decided the matter by an order dated 30.4.2007 at Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. It acknowledges that an intermediate qualification in a vocational course was equivalent to an intermediate examination. The rest of the discussions is not necessary for the present purpose in view of what is to be discussed hereinafter. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before this Court a Bench decision passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1631/07 disposed on 18.4.2007. It notices a Government decision dated 4.9.1996 issued under the signature of the Secretary, Bihar Intermediate Education Council, Patna, communicating that passing of intermediate examination and passing of intermediate examination in vocational course are equivalent. An order of termination in like terms was therefore set aside in the said writ application. 8. It is not the case of the respondents in the impugned order dated 30.4.2007 that the Government communication dated 4.9.1996 has been set aside. It still holds the field. 9. The Government, in its effort to spread literacy more particularly in rural and remote areas appointed persons as Panchayat Sikshak. 8. It is not the case of the respondents in the impugned order dated 30.4.2007 that the Government communication dated 4.9.1996 has been set aside. It still holds the field. 9. The Government, in its effort to spread literacy more particularly in rural and remote areas appointed persons as Panchayat Sikshak. Keeping in mind the level of the classes at which this education was to be imparted, the minimum educational qualification prescribed for the appointment was higher secondary/intermediate. This Court finds no reason to arrive at a conclusion that those holding a vocational intermediate qualification were not eligible in the three Rs so as to be incompetent to impart education. 10. In light of the aforesaid discussion, more particularly, the Government decision dated 4.9.1996 noticed in the earlier writ application the order dated 30.4.2007, holding that intermediate qualification in a vocational course was not an eligibility for appointment under the Panchayat Regulations, is set aside. The petitioners stand reinstated in service. 11. In several of the writ applications the order of the writ court had been stayed. In view of the decision on merits, this Court does not find sufficient justification to differentiate between those who may have had interim orders and those who may not have had the same, so as to make a difference between them in so far as the claim for salary is concerned. Since the Court has held that the orders of their termination were bad, and that they were bad in view of an earlier Government decision already taken on the issue which had not been set aside or annulled, the Court holds that the petitioners shall be entitled to their entire arrears of salary. 12. The writ application stands allowed.