Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 160 (PAT)

Vijay Kumar v. State Of Bihar

2009-02-03

MRIDULA MISHRA

body2009
JUDGEMENT 1. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the State. 2. Petitioners were appointed as Panchayat Teachers, but, subsequently they were removed from service on the ground that they possessed intermediate vocational degree and it was not considered as recommended qualification for appointment of Panchayat Teacher. The prayer of the petitioners was for quashing letter No. 48-12, dated 11.7.2007, issued by the Block Education Extension Officer, Basantpur Block, Supaul, withholding the salary of the petitioners and also for quashing letter No. 2666, dated 1.11.2007, whereby the District Superintendent of Education, Supaul, issued the order of termination of petitioners. 3. I.A No. 631 of 2009 has been filed by the petitioners in order to bring certain developments, which took place during the pendency of the writ application. The District Superintendent of Education in the light of the orders passed in L.P.A. No. 469 of 2008, issued an order in favour of the petitioners on the direction of the Joint Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Patna, contained in Memo No. 3335, dated 9.9.2008. The District Superintendent of Education, by his order, contained in Memo No. 3682, dated 24.12.2008, Memo No. 3612, dated 24.12.2008 and Memo No. 3525, dated 15.12.2008, cancelled the earlier order whereby service of the petitioners was terminated. 4. Petitioners 1, 2 and 4 have already joined on the post of Panchayat Teachers, but, so far petitioner no.3 is concerned, till now no such order has been issued. Counsel for the petitioners submits that similar order should be passed in favour of petitioner No.3 also as she was also removed from her service on the basis of same impugned letter. The counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners are apprehensive of this fact whether their joining on the post of Panchayat Teachers in the light of orders in Annexure-R/1 will be considered as fresh joining or they will get benefit of their past service experience. It is not clear from the impugned order, contained in Annexure-R/1, but, it goes without saying that by order contained in Annexure-R/1 of earlier termination order has been cancelled, as such, it will be deemed that the petitioners continued in service for the period they were terminated, petitioners will be entitled for salary and other consequential benefits for this period as well. Respondent No.6 is directed to issue similar order in favour of petitioner no.3 as by the same impugned order her services were also terminated. 5. With these observations and directions, this application is disposed off.