ORDER : Mihir Kumar Jha, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties as with regard to the following relief prayed in this writ application: "That this is an application praying for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Writ of certiorari, or any other appropriate Writ order, direction quashing the show cause notice contained in letter no. 24, dated 10.12.2012 (Annexure-6), issued by the Respondent No. 10. By the impugned notice dated 10.12.2012, the Petitioner has been asked to furnish explanation, as to why her services be not terminated, as the certificate submitted by her for appointment, as Panchayat Shikshak is from a fake institution. The Petitioner in the alternative prays for a Writ in the nature of a Writ of mandamus commanding the Respondents particularly the Respondent no. 7, 10 and 11 not to terminate the services of the Petitioner, as Panchayat Shikshak, New Primary School, Chailaha, Pakaria, Ward No. 1, Block-Banjaria, District East Champaran, in pursuance of the show cause notice contained in letter no. 24, dated 10.12.2012 (Annexure-6), issued by the Respondent no. 10 till the State Govt. takes a final decision with regard to the genuineness of the institution namely Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi, as directed by this Hon'ble Court in CWJC No. 14322 of 2012 and analogous cases. The Petitioner further prays for a consequential Writ of mandamus commanding the Respondents to pay the salary of the Petitioner from October 2012 onwards and to proceed strictly in accordance with the law." 2. This writ application has been filed by the petitioner to quash the show cause notice with a resultant declaration from this Court that the qualification of Intermediate obtained by the petitioner from the Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the Board") is a valid qualification in terms of Rule 8 of Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teacher (Employment & Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "the 2006 Rules"). 3. Assailing the impugned show cause notice dated 10.12.2012, Mr. Satyabrat Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that even on its bare perusal it becomes clear that the show cause notice has been issued at the dictate of the higher authorities of the Education Department on a up pre-conceived notion and thus no gainful purpose could have been served, had the petitioner filed her show cause reply. 4. In this regard, Mr. 4. In this regard, Mr. Verma relies on certain orders of this Court including those one which has been made Annexure-11 to this writ application being an order of this Court dated 12.10.2012 in C.W.J.C. No. 14322 of 2012 and its analogous case. He has also placed an earlier order of this Court dated 12.12.2011 in C.W.J.C. No. 16278 of 2011 to contend that when persons having qualification of Intermediate from the same Board, namely, Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi had been subjected to order of termination and this Court had interfered with their order of termination. 5. In this case, two counter affidavits have been filed, one by the respondent nos. 5 to 9 and other on behalf of the respondent nos. 6 & 7. In both of them, it has been stated that such Board from which the petitioner claims to have passed the Intermediate examination has never been recognised by the Government of Bihar and that when an issue of the same qualification was required to be gone into in respect of other set of appointment for regular teachers in terms of Advertisement no. 210 of 2010 (appointment of 34540 teachers) in terms of Special Primary Teacher Appointment Rules, 2010, it was held by the State Government that ^^mPprj ek/;fed f'k{kk ifj"kn~] ubZ fnYyh** was not a recognised institution and as such persons passing out from the said institution cannot be said to have a valid Intermediate qualification. 6. In the considered opinion of this Court, whenever an issue of the present nature would emerge, the onus will be always on the person who claims appointment and wants such appointment to be continued to prove that he has a valid qualification. The qualification laid down in the Rules namely Rule 8 of Bihar Panchayat Teacher Appointment Rules, 2006 leaves nothing for speculation that a person in order to become eligible for appointment on the post of Panchayat Teacher must have acquired Higher Secondary/ Intermediate qualification from a teaching institution recognised by the State Government. 7. In view of the Rule 8(d) 2 it was for the petitioner to prove that her institution, namely, Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi fulfils the requirement of Rule 8(d) 2 and a bare reference made in this regard to the letter of the Ministry of Human Resources dated 29.06.2009 can hardly be an answer to the main question. 7. In view of the Rule 8(d) 2 it was for the petitioner to prove that her institution, namely, Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi fulfils the requirement of Rule 8(d) 2 and a bare reference made in this regard to the letter of the Ministry of Human Resources dated 29.06.2009 can hardly be an answer to the main question. Let it be noted that this letter dated 29.06.2009 of the Ministry of Human Resources is a personal communication to one Sunil Kumar under Right to Information Act. This Court is not aware as to what information were actually sought for by Mr. Sunil Kumar inasmuch as and only the answer in form of the letter has been produced. This letter only says that the Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi is a certified institute from 28th February 1964. What is the meaning of this impression certified institute? Does it have recognition of the State Government or the Central Government, which is the only requirement of Rule 8(d) 2 of 2006 Rules. 8. Again the second sentence of the letter dated 20.06.2009 that the aforesaid Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi is recognised for employment under the State Government, Union Territory, Government/Administration and for education/Higher Education in Indian Boards/Universities, does not answer the most valid information required to be given as to which State Government/Central Government by which letter State Government or the Central Government by any specific order or letter has recognised such Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi. 9. In view of the above, this Court will have no difficulty in holding that this self serving letter dated 29.06.2009 cannot be an answer to the query being made by the authorities in the show cause notice wherein the petitioner has been only asked to explain as to whether the petitioner's qualification of Intermediate is from a valid institution as required in 2006 Rules. 10. The order of this Court dated 12.10.2012 in case of Shanti Bharti (supra) also in no way would improve the situation because this Court has only held that the issue should have been decided by the State Government. 11. The issue which, therefore, was required to be decided should be based on evidence to be led by the persons having degree. 11. The issue which, therefore, was required to be decided should be based on evidence to be led by the persons having degree. To that extent the Government can only go to legitimate information which can be on the web-site or other information but as and when any person comes out to justify his/her degree or qualification on the basis of evidence, he will have to prove this aspect in stead of the Government rule proving the negative. 12. To that extent, the order passed by this Court even in the case of Neetu Kumari (supra) will be of no avail inasmuch as in that case whatever it was held that since the services were terminated without show cause notice that order was bad. Here in the present case, the petitioner has, in fact, assailed a show cause notice itself and therefore, at least the order of this Court dated 12.12.2011 in C.W.J.C. No. 16278 of 2011 will be of no assistance. 13. At this stage, Mr. Verma has pointed out that the show cause notice is noting but a mere formality and in fact, the earlier order dated 30.10.2012 of the District Programme Officer (Establishment), East Champaran, Motihari is the main order which has been passed without any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 14. Let it be noted that the District Programme Officer (Establishment), East Champaran, Motihari is the district head of the Establishment of all the appointments of the teachers and the entire payment of salary to all the teachers in the primary school has to be made on the authorization of the District Programme Officer. He is, therefore, the representative of the Government in the District. The Government has the task of achieving the object of Article 21-A of the Constitution of India for ensuring free and compulsorily education to the children in the age group of 6 to 14 years. He is, therefore, the representative of the Government in the District. The Government has the task of achieving the object of Article 21-A of the Constitution of India for ensuring free and compulsorily education to the children in the age group of 6 to 14 years. In such a situation if the district head of the Education Department would find that the teachers are being appointed without there being a valid qualification as laid down in the Rules, his authority to point out such aspect relating to violation of Rules cannot be said to be either interfering with the jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat or Zila Parishad, who has been vested with the power of appointment on the post of teachers in Primary, Middle or High School under the rules framed in the year 2006. 15. As a matter of fact, for making payment of salary would by the official duty of the District Programme Officer (Establishment) to see as to teachers, who have been appointed by the Panchayat and Prakhand in terms of 2006 Rules and are to be paid their salary, do have a valid qualification. To that extent, this Court does not find any error in the general communication made to all the Block Education Officers who are also ex-officio secretary of the employment unit at the block level. To that extent, this Court does not find any error in the general communication made to all the Block Education Officers who are also ex-officio secretary of the employment unit at the block level. The following portion of the order of the District Programme Officer (Establishment), in the considered opinion of this Court, cannot be held to be a direction much less dictation for termination inasmuch as all it says is as follows:- ^^dk;kZy; ftyk f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh] iwohZ pEikj.k] eksfrgkjh LFkkiuk 'kk[kk i=kad fuŒ 2299 izs"kd] ftyk dk;Zdze inkf/kdkjh ¼LFkkiuk½ iwohZ pEikj.k] eksfrgkjhA lsok esa] ftys ds lHkh iz[kaM fodkl inkf/kdkjh≶&lfpo] iz[kaM fu;kstu bdkbZ iwohZ pEikj.kA fo"k; & QthZ] izek.k i=@vekU; laLFkku }kjk fuxZr izek.k i= ds vk/kkj ij fu;qfDr iz[kaM@iapk;r f'k{kd ds fo:) dkjZokbZ djus ds laca/k esaaA egk'k;] mi;qZDr fo"k;d ftys ds iz[kaM ,oa iapk;r fu;kstu bZdkbZ vUrxZr f}rh; f'k{kd fu;kstu o"kZ 2008] esa QthZ@vekU; laLFkku ls fuxZr izek.k i= ds vk/kkj ij fu;ksftr f'k{kdksa dh lwph ftyk f'k{kk vf/kdkjh] iwohZ pEikj.k ds vkns'kkuqlkj bl i= ds lkFk layXu dj vkidks izkIr djk;k tk jgk gSA d`i;k mDr f'k{kdksa ls Li"Vhdj.k iwNrs gq, 10 fnuksa ds vUnj fu;kstu lekIr djus@djkus dh dkjZokbZ ds lkFk fof/k lEer dkjZokbZ Hkh dh tk, rFkk vuqikyu izfrosnu v/kksgLrk{kjh dk;kZy; dks miyC/k djk;k tk,A fo'oklHkktu g0@& ftyk@dk;Zdze inkf/kdkjh ¼LFkkiuk½ iwohZ pEikj.k] eksfrgkjhA** 16. Thus whatever has been said by the District Programme Officer is only with regard to institution which has been found to be either non-existing (Farji) or unrecognized (Amanya). If the name of the certificate of the institution of the petitioner has been also included in such a list and the employee unit has been asked to issue a show cause notice, this Court can not hold that there is any direction to terminate the service of the petitioner. 17. As a matter of fact, this Court also does not find any merit in this criticism of the counter affidavit made by Mr. Verma that since an appointment has been made basis of Annexure-A to the counter affidavit i.e. the same institution, therefore it has to be held that the Government till date has no proof of the institution, namely, Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi to be a fake or unrecognized institution. 18. Verma that since an appointment has been made basis of Annexure-A to the counter affidavit i.e. the same institution, therefore it has to be held that the Government till date has no proof of the institution, namely, Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi to be a fake or unrecognized institution. 18. As noted above, the onus of proving the qualification to be valid one is on the person who gets an appointment and wants such appointment to be continued. The respondents have come to a prima facie conclusion that the institution from which the petitioner has got the qualification is not a recognised institution and does not come within the ambit of Rule 8(d) 2 of 2006 Rules and for which a show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner. The petitioner in stead of filing reply has successfully brought the fact before this Court by filing this writ application on 22.01.2013 and till date the authorities on account of pendency of this writ application have not taken any decision. 19. In that view of the matter, when the petitioner has also claimed that she had already filed her show cause reply, this Court would direct the respondent no. 11 Panchayat Secretary of Gram Panchayat Raj, Pakaria to examine the same and place the matter before the Committee for taking a final decision within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. If the petitioner wants to take any further defence in support of her qualification of Intermediate to be valid in terms of Rule 8(d) 2 of 2006 Rules she is at liberty to do so but in no event this issue should be now kept pending any further and a final decision must be taken within the aforementioned prescribed period. It is also directed that payment of arrears and current salary to the petitioner would also abide by the aforesaid decision inasmuch as the petitioner will be entitled for payment of her salary only if she is held to be qualified for the post of teacher. 20. With the aforementioned observation, this writ application is disposed of.