IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9083 of 2008 Rekha Kumari, W/o Uma Shankar Prasad, resident of Village Tedhiya P. S. Sahiyara, District Sitamarhi ……………………………….Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through Commissioner-cum- Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 2. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Sitamarhi. 4. The District Superintendent of Education- Cum-District Programme Co-ordinator, Bihar Shiksha Pariyojana (Bihar Education Project) District Sitamarhi 5. The Block Education Extension Officer, Block Bathnaha, District Sitamarhi 6. Jagdish Rout, Panchayat Sewak-cum-Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Bakhri through the Block Development Officer, Bathnaha Block, District Sitamarhi. 7. Gangotri Devi, Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Bakhri, Post Yogibana, P.S. Sahiyara, District Sitamarhi………………..………..Respondents. ----------- For the Petitioner: M/s Sunil Kumar Verma & Suman Kumar Verma, Advocates For the State: A.C. to Standing Counsel No.8. 2 30.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. Petitioner has challenged an order of the Collector, Sitmarhi dated 25.01.2008 by which, upon remand by this Court through CWJC No. 2893 of 2007, he has considered the application of the petitioner and rejected the same. The Collector has held that since as per the resolution of the Government 2 No.845 dated 07.04.2005, minimum qualification for a candidate for appointment was laid down as Intermediate which the petitioner did not fulfill. Therefore, she could not be re-engaged as Shiksha Mitra after her term expired in February, 2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is an error of record and the resolution of the Government dated 07.04.2005 has provided that after engagement if incumbent passes the Intermediate examination within 33 months, her appointment could not be cancelled. He has, particularly, placed reliance on the case of Indu Devi Versus The State of Bihar & others reported in 2010 (2) PLJR 241. In the said case, services of the petitioner as Panchayat Shikshak Mira was terminated by order dated 11.02.2009 on the ground that she had not acquired the degree of Intermediate examination within 33 months of her first engagement as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra in terms of Circular No. 2517 dated 04.07.2008. The facts of that case show that petitioner was appointed on contract basis 3 on 07.03.2003 when the minimum qualification for engagement as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra was matriculation as per Government Circular No.1079 dated 20.06.2002. By subsequent circular no.1458 dated 11.08.2004, Government enhanced the minimum qualification for appointment on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra as Intermediate with 45% marks. The circular was vague on the point whether enhanced qualification will be applicable to Panchayat Shiksha Mitra appointed earlier with matriculation qualification, or not. First engagement of the petitioner was renewed from time to time and she completed 33 months’ tenure on 06.05.2005. Subsequently, she was re-engaged and after Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules 2006 came into force, she became Panchayat Teacher. After the Rules came into force, Government decided to terminate such Panchayat Teachers who had not passed the Intermediate examination with 45% marks. The services of some of the petitioners, who were terminated, had moved this Court and finally by the judgment passed in L.P.A. 4 N.940 of 2007, it was decided that the candidates who had acquired Intermediate qualification within 33 months from the date of their initial appointment even with less than 45% marks, shall be treated as properly appointed on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitras and will be absorbed as Panchayat Teachers. The petitioner claims that she completed the course of Sahitya Bhushan and got the degree on 20.09.2006 which qualification was equivalent to Intermediate. Later on, the Government reinstated all such terminated Panchayat Teachers whose appointment had been cancelled on the ground of not having Intermediate qualification with 45% marks and reinstated them. Subsequently, the State Government again came up with Resolution no. 2517 dated 04.07.2008 whereby 33 months time limit was fixed for obtaining Intermediate degree from the date of first appointment as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra. This was challenged before this Court on the ground that the said resolution could not be given retrospective effect which was accepted by 5 this Court. The contention is that since petitioner had acquired Intermediate qualification on 20.09.2006 itself i.e. only seven months later to the date on which she completed 33 months from the date of her initial appointment, the said circular could not be applicable to her. So far as present petitioner is concerned, apparently, she was appointed for the first time as Shiksha Mitra on 24.02.2003. Her second engagement was made on 03.03.2004 and third reengagement was made on 06.02.2005 till February, 2006. As per the resolution of the Government, Shiksha Mitra appointed for the first time can be granted extension only for two terms more. That is first engagement on selection basis and two re-engagements. Petitioner completed the same in the month of February, 2006 and, therefore, on that count, she could not be re-engaged as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra. However, this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the Collector. The Collector proceeded on the premises that resolution no. 845 dated 07.04.2005 provided 6 for minimum qualification for the post of Shiksha Mitra as Intermediate. Since in February, 2006, petitioner was not Intermediate, which is an admitted position, she could not be re-engaged as Shiksha Mitra. It is apparent that said resolution no.845 dated 07.04.2005 was not under consideration in the judgment of this Court, as relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, on both counts, i.e. she had not possessed minimum qualification in February, 2006 for re-engagement and that in terms of the Resolution dated 20.06.2002, she could not be re-engaged for the fourth time as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra, the case fails. In the result, this Court does not find any merit in this writ application and the same is dismissed. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)