IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.462 of 2008 PRITI KUMARI, D/o Arjun Prasad Mandal, Resident of Village-Budhiya , Panchayat-Mahadeopur, Police Station- Banmankhi, District- Purnea. …………. .Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary , Secondary Primary & Adult Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. The District Magistrate, Purnea 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Purnea 5. The Regional Education Officer, Banmankhi, District-Purnea 6. Sub Divisional Officer, Banmankhi, District-Purnea 7. Block Development Officer, Banmankhi, District-Purnea, 8. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat, Mahadeopur, Police Station- Banmankhi, District-Purnea 9. The Panchayat Sachiv, Gram Panchayat, Mahadeopur, Police Station-Banmankhi, District-Purnea 10. The Headmaster, Shyam Lal Kanya Middle School, Budhiya, District-Purnea …………………………..Respondents. ----------- 2. 06.03.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the state. Petitioner’s case is that in the light of departmental Circular No. 1079 dated 20.06.2002, she was appointed on the post of Shikcha Mitra for a term of 11 months on contract basis on a fixed honorarium by the Sukh Subidha Samitee, of Gram Panchayat Budhiya, Banmankhi block in the district of Purnea. Her first engagement of 11 months expired on 10.07.2004. She was given extension on recommendation of the headmaster of concerned school for a period of 11 months vide Memo No. 2611 dated 23.6.2004. The 2 second period of extension expired on 10.6.2005. She was expecting third extension as her service was satisfactory. The order of extension for third period of 11 months , was not passed. She was paid her honorarium for the second extension period only till March, 2005 though it expired on 10.6.2005. From the pleadings in the writ application, it transpires that the petitioner did not apply for third extension in prescribed form “C” along with the recommendations of the headmaster. The new rule relating to appointment of Panchyat Teachers i. e. Panchayat Primary Teachers (Appointment and Service Conditions) rule 2006 came in force on 01.7.2006 but petitioner’s services was not absorbed as no further extension i.e. 3rd extension was allowed to her and she was not working as Panchayat Shikcha Mitra on 01.07.2006. It is being claimed by the petitioner that she is still continuing on the post of Panchayat Shikcha Mitra and discharging her duties, though not being paid her honorarium. There is an admission that she is not being paid honorarium after March, 2005 i.e. prior to the expiry of second period. In this view, legally she is not working on the post. Considering the fact that after 01.07.2006, 3 there is no existing post of Panchayat Shikcha Mitra, no direction can be issued to treat the petitioner continuing on the post of Panchayat Shikcha Mitra. Third extension after 2005 was also not allowed to the petitioner as she herself had not applied. So far petitioner’s claim that she is continuing on the post, can only be verified from the records and for all these purpose, the headmaster of the concerned school as well as the concerned authorities are required to be interrogated. They are also answerable as to how the petitioner was allowed to continue, though the post of Panchayat Shikcha Mitra is not existing. Considering all these facts, this writ application is being disposed of. The petitioner if interested may represent before the competent authority i.e. the District Level Tribunal constituted under 2008 rules. The Tribunal may consider the desirability of any inquiry in this regard and pass order in accordance with law. The representation, if so presented, must be disposed of preferably within eight weeks. AKV/ ( Mridula Mishra, J )