IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3578 of 2007 UDAY SHANKAR YADAV, sosn of Bhubneshwar Yadav, resident of village East Vehawli, P.S. Hayaghat, District Darbhanga. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Secretary, education Govt. of Bihar, patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Darbhanga. 4. The District Superintendent of education, Darbhanga. 5. The Area Education Officer, Darbhanga. 6. The Block Education Officer, Hanuman nagar, Darbhanga. 7. The Block Development officer, Hanuman nagar, Darbhanga. 8. Mukhia, Gram Panchayat Raj, Naiyam Chhritauna, P.S. Hayaghat, Dist. Darbhanga. ----------- 2 01.10.2010 Having heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State as with regard to the following prayer, “That by way of this writ application the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Hon’ble Court for issuance of appropriate4 writ/ order/ direction commanding the respondents to make appointment of the petitioner on the sanctioned and vacant post of Siksha Mitra/ Panchayat Sikshak in Naiyam Chhatauna Gram Panchayat under Hanuman nagar block, District Darbhanga.” this Court is of the considered opinion that after abolition of the post of Siksha Mitra w.e.f. 1.7.2006 no direction can be issued by this Court for appointment of the petitioner on the post of Siksha Mitra. Counsel for the petitioner has highlighted that the petitioner was edged out by selection of one Dilip Kumar Sah and when the petitioner had filed a complaint, the authorities had made enquiry and thereafter it was found that the said Dilip Kumar Sah was wrongly appointed on the post of Siksha Mitra and when such 2 order was passed on 1.12.2006, the benefit of the same should have been given to the petitioner, inasmuch as, if Dilip Kumar Sah would not have been appointed the petitioner could have been easily appointed on the post of Siksha Mitra and could have continued from 30.6.2006 so as to get the benefit of absorption on the post of Panchayat Sikshak w.e.f. 1.7.2006. In the opinion of this Court such speculative submission of learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted for more than one reasons. The petitioner was never selected and appointed on the post of Shikshamitra so as to get the benefit of being absorbed on the post of Panchayat Shikshak in terms of Bihar Panchayat Prarambhik Shikshak (Niyojan and Seva Sart) Niyamawali, 2006, which reads as follows:- ^^20- fujlu ,oa O;ko`fr%& ¼i½ bl fu;ekoyh ds izHkkoh gksus dh frfFk ls xzkeh.k {ks= esa izkjafHkd f'k{kdksa@'kkjhfjd f'k{kdksa@iapk;r f'k{kk fe= ds fu;kstu ls lacaf/kr iwoZ dh lHkh fu;ekoyh] ladYi] vkns'k] vuqns'k vkfn fujLr ekus tk;saxsA ¼ ii ½ fdUrq bl fujlu ds gksrs gq, Hkh iwoZ ds fu;ekoyh] ladYi] vkns'k] vuqns'k vkfn ds rgr fu;qDEr f'k{kdksa ds osrukfn ,oa lsok 'krksZa ij bldk izHkko ugha iM+sxkA ¼ iii ½ fdUrq iwoZ ds ifji=] vkns'k] vuqns'k ds vkyksd esa fu;ksftr ,oa dk;Zjr iapk;r f'k{kk fe= bl fu;ekoyh ds rgr iapk;r f'k{kd ds :i esa fu;ksftr ekus tk;saxsA fcgkj jkT;iky ds vksn'k ls] ¼enu eksgu >k½ vk;qDr ,oa lfpo ekuo lalk/ku fodkl foHkkxA** From reading of the aforementioned Rule-20, which has been framed by the State Government in exercise of its power 3 conferred upon it under Article 243 read with Section 47, 48 & 146 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, it is absolutely clear that the very provision for engagement/employment of Shikshamitra has been repealed. Once the provision for engagement/appointment of Shikshamitra has been repealed, there can be no direction to make appointment on the post of Shikshamitra in any manner at least on or after 1.7.2006, especially when Rule 20(iii) only has envisaged continuation of the Shikshamitra already employed and working by way of absorption on the post of Panchayat Shikshak. The 2006 Rules pertaining to appointment on the post of Panchayat Shiksah, infact, if compared with the earlier executive instruction on the subject of appointment of Shikshamitra would itself go to show that there has been a different procedure altogether for appointment on the post of Panchayat Shikshak, wherein, the qualification also has been changed and enhanced. In that view of the matter, it would be difficult to accept the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that once an order was passed on 1.12.2006 for cancelling the appointment of Dilip Kumar Sah as his engagement on the post of Shikshamitra was illegal, that should have inured to the benefit of the petitioner by way of his appointment on the post of Panchayat Shikshak since Dilip Kumar Sah, before being removed from service, had been absorbed on the post of Panchayat Shikshak in 4 terms of Rule 20(iii) of the Rules. To that extent, the clarification given by the Director, Primary Education to the query of the Collector of Kaimur district, reading as follows:- ^^i=kad &7@fo0 1&50 @2006 e0 1893 ekuo lalk/ku fodkl foHkkx] fcgkjA izs"kd] v'kksd dqekj flag] funs'kd ¼izk0f'k0½ fcgkjA lsok esa] ftyk inkf/kdkjh] dSeqj iVuk fnukad 10-11-06 fo"k;%& iapk;r f'k{kk fe= ds fu;kstu ds laca/k esaA egk'k;] mi;qZDr fo"k;d vkids i=kad 316 ¼m0½ fnukad 12-10-06 ds izlax esa dguk gS fd fcgkj iapk;r izkjafHkd f'k{kd ¼fu;kstu ,oa lsok 'krZ½ fu;ekoyh 06 1yh tqykbZ 06 ls iz[;kfir ,oa ykxq gS ftldh dafMdk 4 ,oa 9 esa mYysf[kr izko/kkuksa ds vUrxZr izkjafHkd f'k{kdksa ds fu;kstu dh dkjZokbZ izfdz;k/khu gSA 2- mDr fu;ekoyh ds izHkkoh gksus dh frfFk ls dafMdk 20 ds vuqlkj xzkeh.k {ks= esa iapk;r f'k{kk fe= ds fu;kstu ls lacaf/kr iwoZ dh lHkh fu;ekoyh@ladYi@vkns'k@vusn'k ,oa ifji= vkfn fujLr gks x;s gSA vr% 1-7-06 ds ckn iapk;r f'k{kk fe= esa fu;kstu laHko ugha gSA 3- vxj fdlh iapk;r f'k{kk fe= ds fu;kstu ds lca/k esa f'kdk;r izkIr gksrh gS vkSj tkapksijkar voS/k ik;k tkrk gS rks mUgs gVk;k tk ldrk gS ijarq muds LFkku ij vkSj fdlh u;s iapk;r f'k{kk fe= dk fu;kstu fu;ekuqdwy ugha gksxkA g0@& vLi"V ¼v'kkd dqekj flag½ funs'kd izk- f'k0 fcgkj iVuk Kkikad 1899 iVuk fnukad 10-11-06** has been rightly referred to and relied by the learned counsel for the State, which in the opinion of this Court, is the true scope and meaning of Rule 20 of the Rules. 5 That being so, this Court would not find any merit in this application and is accordingly dismissed. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)