IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No. 2333 of 2010 Gohan Chaudhary & Ors. ……………… Petitioners Versus State Of Bihar & Ors. ………………. Respondents With Civil Review No. 56 of 2010 IN (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE 3542/2008) Subodh Kumar, S/o Visundev Ram, R/o Village-Gola Bazar, P.S. Kauakol, District Nawadah ................. Petitioner / Complainant Versus 1. Mohan Chaudhary, S/O Late Saryug Chaudhary, R/O Village Pali, P.O. Puraniya, Block Kauakol District Nawadah. 2. Faiyajzuddin , S/O Sri Ajimuddin, R/O Village Pali, P.O. Puraniya, Block Kauakol District Nawadah. 3. Sarit Kumari, D/O Sri Binod Kumar, R/O Village Pali, P.O. Puraniya, Block Kauakol District Nawadah. 4. Beauty Sinha, D/O Sri Vikash Kumar, R/O Village Pali, P.O. Puraniya, Block Kauakol District Nawadah. 5. Sarita Kumari, D/O Sri Rana Pratap, R/O Village Pali, P.O. Puraniya, Block Kauakol District Nawadah. 6. Arun Kumar, S/O Sri Dhaneshwar Yadav, R/O Village Pali, P.O. Puraniya, Block Kauakol District Nawadah. ……………………. Petitioner / Opposite party 7. The State Of Bihar. 8. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department Of Human Resources Development, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna. 9. The District Magistrate, Nawadah. 10. The District Superintendent Of Education, Nawadah. 11. The Sub Divisional Officer, Nawadah Sadar, District- Nawadah. 12. The Executive Magistrate, Nawadah Sadar, District- Nawadah. 13. The Block Development Officer, Kauakol, District-Nawadah. 14. The Block Education Extension Officer, Kauakol, District- Nawadah. 15. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Pali, Block Kauakol, District Nawadah. 16. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Pali, Block Kauakol, District- Nawadah. …………………….. Opposite party / Respondents ---------------------------------- 06. 26.09.2011 Show-cause has been filed on behalf of 2 Opposite Party No. 4, stating that the arrears of salary payable to the petitioner has been released by the deponent, vide letter no. 2474, dated 21.08.2011 and an amount of Rs. 10,50,000/- vide Demand Draft No. 67504, dated 18.03.2011, issued by the State Bank of India, Nawada, has been received by the Panchayat Secretary on 21.08.2011, for making payment of salary to the petitioner for the period he remained terminated. Till date petitioner has not been paid the arrears of salary on account of pendency of the Review Application. Though petitioner has been reinstated on the post of Panchayat Teacher. The show-cause, filed on behalf of Opposite Party No. 4 indicates that there is compliance of the direction of this Court, considering this, MJC application is being disposed of. The amount, for which Demand Draft has been issued, shall be paid to the petitioner. Civil Review No. 56 of 2010 has been filed by one Subodh Kumar, for reviewing the Order, dated 14.01.2010, passed in C.W.J.C. No.3542 of 2008, whereby the order terminating the writ petitioner, from the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra has been quashed with a direction to re-instate the 3 writ petitioner and to pay all monetary benefits, and arrears of salary. The review petitioner has filed this review application on two grounds. First ground is that Writ Application was decided without impleading him as Respondent, though he was a necessary party. He had been appointed as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra during the year 2003 and before completion of 11 months, his appointment was stayed and he could not complete his tenure of 11 months. No one was appointed thereafter as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra but the writ petitioner falsely claimed to be appointed as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra in the year 2005. The appointment of writ petitioner was alleged to be illegal and he was terminated, which he challenged by filing writ petitioner. The review petitioner being a necessary party, should have been impleaded as Respondent in the Writ Application. Any Order passed in the Writ Application in his absence is liable to be reviewed at his instance. Another ground taken by the review petitioner is that since appointment of the writ petitioner was terminated, as such claim of review petitioner to be appointed as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra and absorption on the post of Panchayat 4 Teacher can not be ignored. Since, writ petitioner’s appointment as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra had been on the basis of ante-dated documents, no right accrued in favour of the writ petitioner for being absorbed on the post of Panchayat Teacher. Entire issue is needed to be considered. In this background, a prayer has been made for reviewing the order passed in the Writ Application. Relief prayed by the review petitioner can not be considered for two reasons: (i) Panel of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra is only for 11 months. For any reason after 11 months, the review petitioner, if not re-engaged and subsequent appointment was not challenged by him, person like review petitioner can not claim that he was a necessary party. There was no legal necessity to implead him as respondent in the Writ Application. Another ground taken by the review petitioner relates to illegality committed in the appointment of writ petitioners and absorption on the post of Panchayat Teacher. At this stage no order can be passed in the light of the recent Division Bench Decision, dated 23.08.2011, presided over by Hon'ble the Chief Justice, in C.W.J.C. No. 10113 of 2007 in the similar matter where it has been held 5 that the legality of the appointment of the Panchayat Shiksha Mitra can not be reopened neither any direction can be issued for terminating persons who are subsequently absorbed on the post of Panchayat Teacher. In the present case, writ petitioners have been absorbed on the post of Panchayat Teacher. Now this issue can not re-opened. For the reasons stated above, the Review Petition is dismissed. SKM (Mridula Mishra, J.)