IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6338 of 2007 AJIT KUMAR & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 03.07.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, for the State and learned counsel for the Intervener on I.A. No. 1598 of 2008, which is also allowed. The issue of the petitioner having no right to seek appointment or extension for the events prior to 1.7.2006 when Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 came into force is quite distinct from the question of any illegalities in appointment of persons who may have subsequently acquired the status of permanency as Panchayat Shikshak by virtue of the saving clause under Rule 20 of the Rules. Though this Court is not persuaded that the petitioner has any cause of action to maintain the claim for appointment, it is essential to mention that his contractual appointment expired on 28.1.2004 on expiry of 11 months when there is no order for renewal of the same. However, when an enquiry has been held into the alleged illegality in certain appointments and a report has been submitted on 24.8.2006 by the Block Development Officer, who is the statutory authority to inquire into such allegations under the Rules framed on 1.7.2006, the Respondents are naturally required to take the enquiry report to its logical conclusion one way or the other. The writ application is dismissed with regard to the claim - 2 - for consideration of appointment of the petitioner. However, the Court directs Respondent no. 6 to take the enquiry report of the statutory authority to its logical conclusion within a maximum period four months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)