The court emphasized the non-punitive nature of government circulars and the importance of the enhanced qualification for improving teaching standards.

1. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and the respondent nos.5 and 6.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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 (Indu Devi Vrs. 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.

7. 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 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, in absence of counsel for the appellant, Government Circular dated 21.4.2005 was relied on for holding that within 33 months ‘time Panchayat Shiksha Mitra should obtain intermediate degree, but in fact in the said Government Circular there is no such provision. Petitioner took up equivalent to intermediate co