The main legal point established in the judgment is that executive orders cannot have retrospective effect, and the intention behind government circulars for enhancing qualifications should be to improve educational standards, not to punish the teachers.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State.

2. Petitioner has been terminated from service by order dated 11.2.2009 issued by the Block Education Extension Officer, Jandaha with retrospective effect, since she has not acquired the degree of Intermediate examination within 33 months of her first engagement as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra in compliance of Circular No. 2517 dated 4.7.2008. Further prayer of the petitioner is for quashing part of Circular dated 4.7.2008 whereby criteria for acquiring Intermediate qualificatidn within 33 months of first engagement has been fixed. Petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the respondents to reinstate her with all consequential benefits.

3. Petitioner was initially appointed as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra on contract basis for 11 months on 7.3.2003. At the time of her first engagement she possessed matriculation qualification which was the requisite qualification for this post in accordance with the Government Circular No. 1079 dated 20.6.2002. Department of Human Resources Development, Govt. of Bihar vide Circular No. 1458 dated 11.8.2004 enhanced minimum qualification for appointment on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra as Intermediate with 45 per cent marks. The circular was vague on this point, whether enhanced qualification will be applicable to Panchayat Shiksha Mitras appointed earlier with matriculation qualification. Petitioners first engagement was renewed on 25.3.2004 and again on 6.5.2005. Accordingly, she completed 33 months tenure on 6.4.2006. Subsequently on 29.6.2007 she was re-engaged and while continuing on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra, Primary Teachers Appointment Rules, 2006 came into force with effect from 1.7.2006 and all Panchayat Shiksha Mitras working on that date were absorbed/treated as Panchayat Block Teachers under Rule 20 of 2006 Appointment Rules. The Government at this juncture decided to terminate those Panchayat Shiksha Mitras absorbed as Panchayat Teachers having Intermediate qualification with less than 45 per cent marks. The teachers who were terminated from their services filed writ application and finally vide order dated 12.2.2008 passed in LPA No. 940/07 it was decided that the candidates who had acquired intermediate qualification within 33 months from the date of their initial selection/appointment even with less than 45% marks, shall be treated as properly appointed on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitras and will be absorbed on the post of Panchayat/Prakhand Teachers.

4. Petitioners case is that she took up course of Sahitya Bhushan, which is equivalent to Intermediate in sessions 2003- 05 but on account of delayed examination petitioners result was delayed and finally published on 20.9.2006. She obained Intermediate degree on 20.9.2006. The Government later on reinstated all such terminated Panchayat/Prakhand Teachers whose appointment had been cancelled on account of not possessing Intermediate qualification. Subsequently the concerned department of State Government came out with Resolution No. 2517 dated 4.7.2008, whereby 33 months time has been fixed for obtaining Intermediate degree from the date of first appointment on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra.

5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that part of the Resolution contained in Circular No. 2517 dated 4.7.2008 is arbitrary, as it has been made retrospective. Panchayat Shiksha Mitras who were engaged on the basis of their matriculation qualification had no knowledge that in future Government will come out with any circular relating to enhancement of qualification with retrospective effect. The condition of acquiring Intermediate degree within 33 months from the first engagement is arbitrary. Counsel for the State submits that Circular No. 2517 dated 4.7.2008 has been issued consequential to order passed in LPA No. 940/07. In reply, the counsel for the petitioner submitted before the LPA Bench Government Circular dated 21.4