ORDER The order contained in Annexure- 5 dated 20.9.2013 is being assailed by the petitioner and he is seeking quashing of the same. Short facts are that the petitioner, who happened to be a Panchayat Teacher, took admission in B.Ed. course for a special session for which he made a prayer for leave. Despite no provision in the rules governing such service conditions, the then District Superintendent of Education was more than indulgent and obliging by exercising a discretion not vested in him, he allowed leave to the extent of 96 days. Even “salary” was allowed to the petitioner as is his case. 2. This infirmity was brought to the notice of the authorities by one Kumari Babli, another Panchayat Teacher. Petitioner alleges malafide against such a complaint but that does not dilute the issue whether the petitioner was entitled to this kind of indulgence by the then DSE. 3. The relevant provisions in relation to the service rules governing Panchayat Teachers is of the year 2006. Subsequently an amendment was also brought about in the year 2008. A Panchayat Teacher in terms of the 2006 Rules was entitled to 16 days of leave alone in a year. The amendment allows that leave to the extent of 30 days without any remuneration. Obviously, when the facts and the records were analyzed by the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Saharsa, this glaring omission has emerged and therefore, he was constrained to pass the order contained in Annexure- 5. 4. Submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that recently some amendment has been brought about which allows this kind of leave for training, therefore, the matter should be decided in the light of such a development. The permission was granted by the concerned competent authority on a bonafide prayer made by the petitioner and now he cannot be faulted or visited with an adverse order for no fault of his. It is also urged on behalf of petitioner that he was not even in know of this kind of leave. It was for the authority to take care before exercising such power. 5. Petitioner is supposed to be an educated person working as a Panchayat Teacher. He has also obtained a B.Ed. degree, therefore, such plea of lack of knowledge of law and rules cannot be accepted even as a principle of law. 6. It was for the authority to take care before exercising such power. 5. Petitioner is supposed to be an educated person working as a Panchayat Teacher. He has also obtained a B.Ed. degree, therefore, such plea of lack of knowledge of law and rules cannot be accepted even as a principle of law. 6. So far as the decision of grant of such leave is concerned by the DSE, even if it may not be a malafide exercise of power by the then District Superintendent of Education but sure is an illegal exercise of power because he obviously had no business to grant any leave over and above the rules which prescribed the nature of leave permissible to a Panchayat Teacher. The DSE is not running a personal fiefdom. He is supposed to go by law of land as well as the State. He is as much of an employee of the State as any other law abiding government servant is supposed to be. Obviously, an illegal advantage was drawn by the petitioner with some kind of connivance and petitioner was granted such a big leeway. 7. In view of the same, the decision is not required to be interfered with because any interference with Annexure- 5 will amount to giving a seal of approval to an illegal decision taken previously, which has been rectified by the District Programme Officer (Establishment). A correct and valid decision is not required to be interfered with. There is no equity also in favour of the petitioner. The writ application is, therefore, dismissed. 8. Before parting, it is clarified that the recent amendment will be prospective and not retrospective. Further a Panchayat teacher is not a permanent government servant, who gets salary. He is on fixed remuneration on contract.