IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16516 of 2009 1. RAM KAILASH BHAGAT S/O SRI JAY NARAYAN BHAGAT R/O VILL-MAJHAWALIA, P.O-CHHITANPUR, P.S- ASAON, DISTT- SIWAN Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE MEMBER DISTRICT TEACHER EMPLOYMENT APPELLATE AUTHORITY, SIWAN 3. THE SECRETARY, PRIMARY AND ADULT EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SIWAN 5. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, SIWAN 6. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, JIRADAYEE, DISTRICT- SIWAN 7. BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, JIRADAYEE, DISTT- SIWAN 8. THE MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ MAJHAWALIA, P.S- ASAON, DISTT- SIWAN 9. THE PANCHAYAT SACHIV, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ MAJHAWALIA, P.S- ASAON, DISTT- SIWAN 10. RAGINI DEVI, W/O SRI AWADHESH KUMAR DWIVEDI, R/O VILL-LOHGANJAR, P.O- CHHITANPUR, P.S- ASAON, DISTT- SIWAN ----------- 5 19/04/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for private respondent no. 9 and learned counsel for the State. Order under challenge is contained in annexure- 1 which has been passed by the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority, Siwan dated 9.11.2009. By virtue of this order appointment of the petitioner as a Panchayat Shiksha Mitra made in the year - 2 - 2003 has been annulled and a direction has been issued in favour of respondent no. 9 for her appointment. There are two pointed submissions which have been made at the Bar by the learned Senior Counsel while assailing the order of the Appellate Authority that there was no occasion for the Appellate Authority to give any direction for appointment of the private respondent to a post which is non existent after 1.7.2006. Admitted position is that the dispute relates to appointment on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra, a post which then existed prior to cutoff date i.e. 1.7.2006. To that extent the direction given by the Tribunal seems to be erroneous. The other submission is based on a plethora of decisions rendered by this Court in several writ applications, some of which have been produced before this Court and are being noted here-in-below because in similar circumstance the High Court had occasion to observe that appointment of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra made in the year 2003-04 cannot become subject matter of challenge after so many years specially when Panchayat Shiksha Mitra has acquired the status of - 3 - Panchayat Shikshak after coming into force of 2006 Rules and a settled position cannot be allowed to be changed by the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. (i) Alok Kumar and others Vs. State of Bihar & others reported in 2009(2) PLJR, 929, (ii) Md. Unush Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2009(4) P.L.J.R., 379 and (iii) Chandradeo Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in 2009(4) PLJR, 318. The law being what it is, ratio of the decisions taken in the earlier part of the order does come to the rescue of the present petitioner and to that extent the petitioner succeeds in assailing the order contained in annexure-1 and it is required to be interfered with. Contention of private respondent no.9 is that the issue of her appointment remained alive as she was pursuing the matter with various forums and the matter also traveled upto the High Court at one stage and it was on the direction of the High Court that the Appellate Tribunal has decided the matter which is annexure-1 to the writ application. That order ought not to be interfered with as that will be prejudicial and detrimental - 4 - to the interest of private respondent no. 9. Merely because the High Court gave a direction to the Tribunal to adjudicate an issue with regard to the claim of the private respondent, it does not mean that the Tribunal has absolute authority to adjudicate in the manner it wants to do ignoring the settled principle of law to such adjudication as well as the issue of appointment on a post which related to the year 2003. Submission of the private respondent, therefore, does not merit consideration. Petitioner has made out a case for interference. Annexure-1 to that extent stands quashed as both the points raised at the Bar goes in favour of the petitioner in the circumstances noted in the earlier part of the order. This writ application is allowed accordingly. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)