Shiva Kirti Singh, J.

1. All these writ petitions were heard together at the stage of admission itself because they seek a common relief that Rule-2 of the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teachers Employment and Service Condition Amendment Rules, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Rules, 2009) whereby Rule 12(iii) of the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teachers Employment and Service Condition Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 2006) has been amended and replaced, be declared ultra vires.

2. C.W.J.C. No. 10354 of 2009 has been preferred by Dr. Sushil Kumar who has described himself as one amongst large number of trained candidates waiting for appointment as Assistant Teachers in the State of Bihar. Why he has filed the writ petition and how he is affected by the amendment has not been made clear. However, in many other writ petitions the petitioners are affected persons including an Union of Bihar Rajya Panchayat/Prakhand/ Nagar Shikshak. petitioner no. 1 in C.W.J.C. No. 13333 of 2009 who have claimed to be Panchayat Shikshak or their representatives and have objected to the rule in question on the ground that it provides for holding of evaluation (efficiency test) after every three years (two times in total) for evaluating the competence of the appointed teachers with chances of unpleasant or harmful effects. A minimum of 45% marks for the general category and of 40% marks for the reserved category will entitle trained teachers to an increment of Rs. 500/- and to untrained teachers an increment of Rs. 300/- in one transaction. Those who fail to obtain minimum marks will not be entitled for increment in pay but they will be given one more opportunity of re-evaluation after six months. If again they fail to secure minimum marks then such teachers will be removed from service by their employers.

3. In order to appreciate the issue raised and submissions advanced and for easy reference the relevant Section 12(iii) as existing in the Rules of 2006 and as amended by Amendment Rules, 2009 are extracted hereinafter.

Rule "12(iii) of 2006 Rules:

Rule 12(iii) as amended by Rule 2 of the Amendment Rules, 2009:

4. The earlier Rule 12(iii) provided simply for evaluation as per directions after every three years and on that basis trained teachers could get an increment of Rs. 500/- and the un-trained teachers an increment of Rs. 300/-. It is relevant to note that in Rule 12(iv) it is indicated that the employed teachers may remain in employment till maximum of 60 years of age.

5. On behalf of petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 10354 of 2009 arguments were advanced that the Rule in question besides being ultra vires on several counts, is bad on account of a litigation pending in the Apex Court in which trained teachers have claimed right of appointment on priority. This argument is totally unrelated to the issue of vires raised in these writ petitions and deserves to be rejected summarily.

6. On behalf of petitioners in all the cases, on the issue of illegality or unconstitutionality of the rule in question it was first submitted that the amendment violates security of tenure guaranteed by Article 311 of the Constitution of India to persons who are members of a Civil Service of the Union or an All India Service or Civil Service of a State or hold a civil post under the Union or a State. It was sought to be canvassed that teachers employed by the Panchayat are serving in schools set up by the State and are being paid salary from funds provided by the State and hence for practical purposes they are holders of a civil post under the State and as such they cannot be removed once employed except by resorting to disciplinary proceedings for any charge after due enquiry.

7. On behalf of State it was submitted that Panchayat is a local authority under the statute and its employees such as the petitioners cannot be treated to be holders of a civil post under the State even if State has chosen to help the Panchayat by providing