IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5044 of 2007 RAJEEV RANJAN KUMAR OJHA, son of Sri Basisth Narayan Ojha, resident of village Kolluyan, P.O. Kolluyan, P.S. Baniapur, District Chapra (Saran) ... Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, through its Chief Secretary 2. The Secretary Human Resources Development, Bihar, Patna 3. District Magistrate, Chapra (Saran) 4. District Superintendent of Education, Chapra (Saran) 5. B.E.O., (Block Education Extension Officer) Baniapur, District Chapra (Saran) 6. B.D.O., Baniapur, District Chapra (Saran) 7. Mukhiya Panchayat, Sahajitpur, P.O. Kolluyan, P.S. Baniapur, District Chapra (Saran) 8. Panchayat Sevak, Panchayat Sahajitpur, P.S. Baniapur, District Chapra, Saran 9. Hare Ram Ojha, son of late Rajkishore Ojha, resident of village Kolluyan, P.O. Kolluyan, Panchayat, Sahajitpur, P.S. Baniapur, District Chapra (Saran) 10. Shambhu Kumar Sah, son of Shankar Sah, resident of village Hapijpur, P.O. Hafijpur Panchayat, Sahajitpur, P.S,. Baniapur, District Chapra (Saran) ... Respondents ----------- 2. 28.10.2010 Having heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State with regard to only relief prayed in this writ application reading as follows: “This is an application for issuance of mandamus any other appropriate writs directing upon the respondents (particularly) respondent no.4 to appoint/ engage the petitioner on the post of teacher (Panchayat Siksha Mitra).” this Court is of the considered opinion that 2 after abolition of the post of Shiksha Mitra with effect from 1.7.2006 no direction can be issued by this Court for appointment of the petitioner on the said post. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that had the petitioner been not wrongly eliminated from the zone of consideration for the post of Shiksha Mitra he could also, have been by his continuation as on 30.6.2006 on the post of Shiksha Mitra, regularized/ absorbed on the post of Panchayat Shikshak and therefore, this Court should give liberty to the petitioner to move the District Teachers Appellate Authority is only to be noted for its being rejected. The statute, 2006 Rules, has got two facets, one that the working Shiksha Mitra as on 30.6.2006 shall continue in service by way of being absorbed as Panchayat Shikshak and the order laying down the norms and requirement for appointment on the post of Panchayat Shikshak from open market, having an altogether different procedure in comparison to engagement on the post of Shiksha Mitra. 3 Additionally this Court would find that those Panchayat Shiksha Mitra, who were absorbed on the post of Panchayat Shikshak, could still be subjected to an enquiry/ a proceeding before the District Teachers Appellate Authority, inasmuch as Rule 18 gives power and jurisdiction to the District Teachers Appellate Authority to look into employment on the post of Panchayat Shikshak. The expression „employment (Niyojan)‟ used in Rule 18 has to be understood in the context of both, appointment from open market on the post of Panchayat Shikshak and/or even those who have been absorbed on the post of Panchayat Shikshak. Consequently any complaint with regard to working Panchayat Shikshak, who was absorbed on the post of Panchayat Shikshak in view of Rule 20(iii) of 2006 Rules, could definitely be looked into by the District Teachers Appellate Authority but the same cannot be done in the case of a person who was never appointed on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra, inasmuch as the Authority has been vested with power to direct for appointment on the post of 4 Panchayat Shikshak who were not selected and appointed on the post of Shiksha Mitra. That being the subtle distinction, this Court is not in a position to give liberty to the petitioner to move the District Teachers Appellate Authority. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/