@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Ravi Ranjan, J.@mdashI have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and the respondent nos. 5 and 6. Initially, this writ application was filed for direction to the respondents to pay the arrears of salary of the petitioner, which was not being paid to her for the month of March, 2008.
2. Thereafter, a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent no. 5 appending therewith an order passed on 27.12.2008 itself terminating the petitioner''s services. By filing I.A. No. 6455 of 2012, the petitioner sought leave to challenge the aforesaid order of termination also. The interlocutory application was allowed on 4.10.2012 and the petitioner was permitted to challenge the order of termination also.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the order impugned appears to have been passed on 27.12.2008, the petitioner''s salary was not being paid since March, 2008 itself i.e. even about five months prior to passing the aforesaid order.
4. Next contention on behalf of the petitioner is that she was initially appointed on contract basis as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra vide Annexure-1 dated 18.7.2003 itself and she was allowed to continue. Thereafter, as time to time extension of contract was granted and on 1.7.2006, after coming of the statute, namely, the Bihar Panchayat Prarambhik Shikshak (Niyojan Awam Seva Shart) Niyamawali, 2006 and in view of the provisions as contained in Rule 20 thereof, her services were absorbed as Panchayat Teacher. She continued to work and salary was also being paid which was subsequently stopped only since March, 2008. Thereafter, the impugned order of termination has been passed without granting any opportunity to show cause or hearing to the petitioner in gross violation of the principle of audi alteram partem. That apart, it is also submitted that the petitioner has already completed and passed her intermediate course on 7.7.2007. Prior to that she was allowed to work as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra and Panchayat Teacher and after passing her intermediate examination also she had worked as Panchayat Teacher. However, subsequently, after attaining the intermediate qualification, she has now been terminated on the ground that she could not acquire the intermediate qualification within 33 months.
5. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon a decision of this Court dated 14.7.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3700 of 2009 Reported in 2010 (2) PLJR 241 (Indu Devi vs. The State of Bihar and Others). It is submitted that in a similar matter, this Court has held that the aforesaid circular dated 4.7.2008 cannot be made applicable with retrospective effect for ousting the petitioner when she had already acquired the requisite qualification.
6. As has been stated above, a counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit have been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 5 and 6 as well as State. The respondents have taken a view that the petitioner, since could not acquire the qualification of intermediate within 33 months, cannot be allowed to work in view of the notification as contained in Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 5 and, thus, she has rightly not been given her fixed salary as Panchayat Teacher since March, 2008 as the notification of 4.7.2008. However, this issue no longer appears to be res integra inasmuch as the same has been considered in the order dated 14.7.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3700 of 2009 Reported in 2010 (2) PLJR 241 by another Single Bench of this Court (Annexure-8). Relevant passages of the aforesaid decision are reproduced as under:--
On consideration of the statements made by counsel for the parties and their pleadings, I find that the Division Bench has passed order in LPA No. 940/07 Reported in
Petitioner is now intermediate and possess qualification for continuing in service as Primary Teacher simply because she passed her course on 20.9.2006 i.e. seven months later to the date on which she completed 33 months from the date of her initial appointment, cannot be a ground for termination from service. Intention behind fixing time for acquiring enhanced qualification of intermediate must have been to improve educational qualification and knowledge capacity of Siksha Mitra, already absorbed on the post of Panchayat teachers. Enhancement of qualification was essential for improving standard of teaching in Primary schools, which is the starting point of education system. It is for the benefit of both the i.e. teachers and students. Intention behind these Government Circulars in no case can be punitive and should not be used as a weapon to harass Panchayat Siksha Mitra already absorbed as Teachers.
Accordingly, impugned order dated 11.2.2009, terminating petitioner from service is quashed. Respondents are directed to re-instate the petitioner with all consequential benefits, without loosing any time, preferably within two weeks from the date of production/communication of this order.
7. The case of the petitioner also appears to be on identical footing inasmuch as she has also acquired the requisite qualification on 7.7.2007.
8. In my opinion also, the enhanced qualification of intermediate must have been inducted by the authorities to improve the educational qualification of the Shiksha Mitra. Enhancement of qualification would definitely be useful for improving standard of teaching in Primary Schools which is the starting point of educational system which would be for the benefit of both the teachers and the students. However, intention behind these Government Circulars can never be of punitive nature for ousting a Shiksha Mitra who has already been absorbed as Panchayat Teachers and subsequently has also acquired the required qualification even though after the period of 33 months.
9. As a result, the impugned order dated 27.12.2008, by which the petitioner has been terminated, is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner with all the consequential benefits preferably within six weeks from the date of receipt/production or communication of this order. Accordingly, this writ application stands allowed.
