MIHIR KUMAR JHA, J.:–Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:—

"1. (a) To quash the office order vice Memo No. 395 dated 19.01.13 issued under the signature of District Programme Officer (Establishment) Nalanda whereby and whereunder the appointment order vide Memo No. 303 dated 5.2.2012 issued by the District Education Officer, Nalanda in favour of he petitioner has been cancelled with effect from 5.2.2012.

(b) To quash the order vide memo no. 519 dated 3.8.2012 issued under the signature of Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Bihar, whereby and whereunder a direction has been given for taking action to cancel the appointment of the petitioner.

(c) To quash any consequential order passed in pursuance of office order vide Memo No. 395 dated 19.01.13 issued under the signature of District Programme Officer (Establishment), Nalanda.

(d) To say the office order vides Memo no. 395 dated 19.1.13 issued under the signature of District Programme Officer (Establishment), Nalanda till the disposal of the instant writ application.

(e) To direct the respondent not to recover the amount paid to the petitioner in lieu of salary for the work done on the basis of his appointment and also to pay the Salary month to month.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of the aforementioned prayer, has basically concentrated on the aspect that once the appointment of the petitioner was made on the post of Urdu teacher and that too in terms of the direction given by the Apex Court as with regard to appointment of 34540 teachers on the basis of the name of the petitioner having been included in the panel prepared under the supervision of the Apex Court itself, his such appointment could not have been cancelled on the basis that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification for the post of Urdu teacher. Learned counsel for the petitioner had also relied on the order of the Apex Court dated 18.07.2013 which accordingly to him had given complete embargo on removal of any teacher already appointed in the lot of 34540 teachers under the order of the Apex Court.

4. On the other hand, Mr. S.A.Alam, S.C., having filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the Director, Primary Education, has explained that the petitioner did not fulfil the eligibility conditions for appointment on the post of Urdu teachers. In this regard, he has submitted that a candidate in order to be eligible for appointment on the post of Urdu teacher must have either of the three qualifications, namely, (i) Moulvi with two years teachers training or (2) Fokania up to 1995 with two years teachers training or (iii) Intermediate with 200 marks in the subject of Urdu with two years teachers training and the petitioner did not possession any of the aforementioned three qualification and as such his appointment was cancelled after complying the principle of natural justice.

5. In this regard, he has placed reliance on paragraph 5 to 9 of the counter affidavit which reads as follows:—

“5. That the proper appreciation of the issue in question which appertains to the educational eligibility for appointment against the post of Urdu teacher, it would be firstly appropriate to refer to the specific provision laid down on the said point in Bihar Special Primary Teacher Appointment Rule, 2010 which is as follows:

"Rule 3(iv). mnwZ f'k{kd ds inksa ds fy, fcgkj enjlk f'k{kk cksMZ ls ekSyoh ¼bUVjfefM,V Lrj½ rFkk lerqY; ijh{kk ikl vFkok bUVjehfM,V ijh{kk esa 2010 vadksa ds mnwZ fo"k; dh ijh{kk ds lkFk nks o"khZ; izf'k{k.k ijh{kk mRrh.kZ gksA

Rule 3(vi). ,sls vH;FkhZ tks fcgkj jkT; ds fuoklh gS rFkk o"kZ 1995 ds iwoZ fcgkj jkT; ¼vfoHkkftr½ ds fdlh izf'k{k.k egkfo|ky; ls nks o"khZ; izf'k{k.k mRrhZ.k gS vFkok lh0ih0,M0 mRrhZ.k gSa fdUrq bUVjehfM,V ugh gS os Hkh fu;qfDr ds fy, vkosnu ns ldsaxsA fdUrq fu;qfDr ds 4 o"kksZa ds vanj mUgsa bUVjehfM,V dh ;ksX;rk gkfly dj ysuk vfuok;Z gksxkA**

6. That in the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document