ANAND ROY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties.

(2.) Respondent No. 12 Shyam Kumar was appointed as Panchayat Teacher in the Gram Panchayat on 24.02.2007 and started discharging his duties, however, subsequently, an issue was raised regarding legality of his appointment as he possessed Intermediate qualification in the vocational course and not in a regular Intermediate course, thus, he was declared ineligible for appointment under the Bihar Panchayat Teachers Appointment and Service Condition Rule, 2006, in particular Rule 8 of the same. As a result of that, his appointment was terminated and such termination was challenged by him by filing C.W.J.C. No. 6850 of 2007 which was heard analogous to C.W.J.C. No. 10203 of 2007 and other matters and was allowed vide order dated 21.08.2008 as contained in Annexure 6. The learned Single Judge, after considering the matter in detail, came to the conclusion that the vocational Intermediate qualification will be equivalent to regular Intermediate qualification and, as such, his services were reinstated. However, during the interregnum period when he remain ousted from service, another notification came to be issued inviting applications for appointment on the post of Panchayat Teacher which fell vacant due to termination of the respondent no. 12. The petitioner applied pursuant to the aforesaid notification in the concerned Gram Pachayat and was selected on 28.05.2007 and started functioning as a Primary Teacher, however, after the order of reinstatement of the respondent no. 12, his post came in cloud as the respondent no. 12 was reinstated on the post on which he was working. On that post the petitioner was appointed as stated above after following the due process and procedure.

(3.) It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that now his post has become shaky in view of the aforesaid reinstatement of the respondent no. 12 though he was appointed in a proper manner after following due process and procedure against the existing vacancy. It is further contended that he has worked to the satisfaction of the authority concerned and claims to be working till date even after reinstatement of the respondent no. 12 but his salary is not being paid.