The court reaffirmed that residence cannot be a basis for discrimination in employment, emphasizing adherence to due process and constitutional mandates in termination cases.

JUDGMENT :

PURNENDU SINGH, J.

Re : Interlocutory Application No.1 of 2025

Heard Mr. Nityanand Mishra along with Mr. Alok Abhinav and Mr. Abhishek Mishra, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner; Mr. Sanjay Pandey along with Mr. Nishant Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the Bihar Public Service Commission and Mr. Sanjiv Kumar, learned AC to Advocate General.

2. The petitioner in paragraph no. 1 of the present writ petition has sought inter alia following relief(s), which is reproduced hereinafter:-

“For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing and set aside the Letter No.1341 dated 15.05.2024 (Annexure P/10) issued under the signature of the Director Secondary Education (Respondent No.4) by which it has instructed to all District Education Officers under the State of Bihar to not provide benefit of reservation to the candidates belonging from other state coming under the category of female and disabled at par with the candidates of said category of the State of Bihar in Central Teacher's Eligibility Test (hereinafter CTET) and also for quashing the Memo No.547 dated 31.01.2025 (Annexure P/11) issued under the signature of the Respondent no.11 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been directed to submit show cause reply to the effect that she has obtained less than 60 % marks in CTET, therefore, her appointment is liable to be canceled, the aforesaid notifications are contrary to conditions laid down in the Advertisement No.27 of 2023 dated 04.11.2023(Annexure P/1) by which following the procedure, the petitioner has been appointed as School teacher, moreover, the said notifications are in teeth of a letter issued by the the then Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar vide letter no.666 dated 13.07.2021 (Annexure P/14) in which female candidates either of the resident of Bihar or other States have been put under same category, more so the show cause is in contravention of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by which no discrimination can be made on the ground of place of birth or residence.

(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding and directing the respondents concerned to not disturb the petitioner in smooth functioning of the Government School. The petitioner as school teacher working in her appointed school as she has been appointed in pursuant to conditions laid down in Advertisement No.27 of 2023 dated 04.11.2023 (Anneuxre P/1) and at point of time she has not concealed any fact during the entire selection process and after due verification by the competent authority she have been appointed as school teacher.

(iii) Further for direction to the respondents concerned not to make any employment/selection/appointment in pace of the selected petitioner as school teacher.

(iv) For any other relief/reliefs for which the petitioner is entitled to in accordance with law.”

3. During the pendency of the present writ petition, the District Education Officer, East Champaran, Motihari, vide Memo No.661 dated 07.02.2025 terminated the services of altogether eight school teachers including the petitioner, allegedly in accordance with the provision of "Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005" (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘CCA Rules, 2005’) with immediate effect. The name of the petitioner figures at sl. no.8 of memo dated 07.02.2025. All the above eight teachers were appointed on different dates, after having qualified the STET examination but they do not have the certificate to teach Class I to V.

4. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 07.02.2025, the learned counsel has prayed for addition of reliefs as prayed for in Paragraph No.1 of Interlocutory Applicat