IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11868 of 2010 1. RUPAM KUMARI W/O SRI KAMLESH SHARMA R/O VILL.- UCHIRMA, P.S.- SHERGHATI AND DISTT.- GAYA-----PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, DISTT.- GAYA 3. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, GAYA 4. BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, SHERGHATI, DISTT.- GAYA 5. DISTRICT TEACHERS EMPLOYMENT APPELLATE AUTHORITY, GAYA THROUGH ITS MEMBER 6. MUKHIYA, CHITAB KALA PANCHAYAT BLOCK- SHERGHATI, DISTT.- GAYA---------------------------------RESPONDENTS ----------- 2 29.3.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Annexure-11 is the order passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Gaya by virtue of which the tribunal has held that no direction for appointment of petitioner on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra can be given in the stated background that after coming of the new rule in the year 2006, effective from 1.7.2006 no appointment could be made on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra, as the post ceased to exist. The origin of the present dispute is that initially appointment came to be made in the Panchayat concerned on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra. Certain enquiry came to be made by the authority with regard to the manner and mechanism which had been adopted and the person appointed thereon. That aspect of the matter has already been dealt with by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority in the case of Soni Kumari which has been adjudicated and annexed as annexure-12 to the writ application. Admitted position is that the petitioner though initially appointed came to be removed from the post and since there was no post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra on the date the new rule came in place, the - 2 - petitioner does not have right to be retained or appointed as Panchayat teacher. So far as the filling of the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra is concerned, no person can be appointed on the post which otherwise ceased to exist whatever the background to the issue. In so far as the merit of the claim of the petitioner is concerned that too has been discussed and a clear picture has emerged in the discussion made by the appellate authority in the decision contained in annexure-12. Even otherwise the petitioner does not have open and shut case. In the above stated background no interference is warranted with the decision which is otherwise valid or cogent. This writ application is dismissed. Dismissal of the writ application however will not come in the way of the petitioner’s right to claim his rightful dues as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra as even in case of invalid appointment the right for claiming payment for such work does not vanish as already held by the Division Bench in the case of The State of Bihar & Another vrs. Satyendra Kumar Singh reported in 2009 (3) PLJR 1062. The respondents would be well advised that payment is made to the petitioner for the period she had worked preferably within a period of three months from the date of production or commutation of a copy of this order. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)