IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2694 of 2011 ====================================================== Ranju Devi, W/o Shatrughan Sah, resident of Village- Harali Sanbarsha P.S. Udakishanganj, District-Madhepura .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Madhepura 5. The District Education Employment Appellate Authority, Madhepura 6. The Block Development Officer, Udakishanganj 7. The Block Education Extension Officer, Udakishanganj 8. The Mukhiya Gram Panchayat, Rampur Khora, Block Udakishanganj, District Madhepura 9. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Rampur Khora Block- Udakishanganj, District- Madhepura 10. The Headmaster, Primary School, Sonbarsha, Block Udakishanganj, District-Madhepura .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : M/s. Shyam Nandan Choudhary and Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advocates For the State : Mr. Anurag Saurav, AC to SC-20 ====================================================== CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA ORAL ORDER (Per: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA) 2. 19-09-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 15.11.2010 passed by the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Madhepura in Appeal No. 101/2009 heard and disposed of along with other appeals. The petitioner was appointed as Shiksha Mitra 2 and gave her joining on 6.6.2005. She claims to have been working as Shiksha Mitra and after 1.7.2006 as Panchayat Teacher in view of the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Appointment and Service Condition) Rules, 2006. It is however, the case of the petitioner that from the very beginning her salary has not been paid. The matter was subsequently raised by the petitioner before the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority stating that she was removed from the job by making false allegations. From the impugned order it appears that the Panchayat Secretary had filed written statement before the Appellate Authority stating that the petitioner was earlier appointed on the said post but in view of the letter no. 273 dated 5.4.2006 issued by the District Superintendent of Education, Madhepura on the ground of defect in the appointment of 9 Shiksha Mitras, direction was issued not to take work from them and their payments were stopped which included the petitioner also. The District Superintendent of Education had directed the Panchayat to rectify the mistakes. The Panchayat Selection Committee found that in the Backward Class Female Category, to which the petitioner belongs, there were two posts in which 3 two candidates who had more weightage than the petitioner were appointed and for the said reason after the rectification of error the petitioner was not permitted to work. On the basis of the said stand of the respondents the Appellate Authority held that their action was justified. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a letter dated 19.6.2006 was issued by the Block Education Extension Officer, Uda Kishunganj in which he referred to the letter dated 5.4.2006 of the District Superintendent of Education and the rectification made by the Gram Panchayat in its meeting dated 16.6.2006 and thereafter he cancelled his earlier letter dated 1.5.2006. Learned counsel further refers to a letter dated 27.12.2006 issued by the Headmaster, Primary School, Sonbarsha addressed to the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat in which it is stated that five Panchayat Teacher/ Shiksha Mitra had been appointed and appointment of none of them were cancelled and all the teachers are functioning at that time. It is submitted by learned counsel on the basis of the said two letters that the petitioner had continued to work on the said post and thus the authorities are liable to make payment for the period during which she had worked after her appointment in June, 4 2006 till date. It is further submitted by learned counsel that those Shiksha Mitras who were appointed and continued on the said post, became Panchayat Teachers with effect from 1.7.2006 under the 2006 Rules and thus, her appointment as Panchayat Teacher which is a regular post and not a contractual post like Shiksha Mitra and her earlier appointment as Shiksha Mitra cannot be cancelled by the Panchayat authorities or by the Appellate Authority. This Court does not find force in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. The said submissions, as a matter of fact, contradict the stand of the petitioner before the Appellate Authority which was that she had been removed from the post on wrong allegations after appointment on 3.6.2005. From the facts on the record, it appears that the wrong appointment of the petitioner has been rectified on the direction of the District Superintendent of Education by the appointment of those who had more marks and weightage and stood higher in the merit list as Backward Class Female candidate for the two posts that were available in the Panchayat and thus there can be no grievance of the petitioner on the said ground. It 5 is evident that the action of the authorities is in accord with the rules and guidelines and better candidates have been finally appointed after the action was directed to be taken by the District Superintendent of Education. Reference to the aforesaid two letters of the B.E.E.O. and Headmaster can be of no avail as it is evident that the petitioner has not been paid any amount since her appointment on 3.6.2005 and direction had also been issued by the District Superintendent of Education at that very time to rectify the errors. The letters of the Block Education Extension Officer or of the Headmaster of the concerned school do not at all refer to the details of the matter and cannot be relied upon for grant of any relief. The District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority is the last forum of facts and this Court does not normally interfere with any conclusions reached by such authorities on facts unless the same is found to be perverse in the sense that it is not based on any material or is contrary to the material available on the record. This Court does not find any perversity in the order nor is learned counsel for the petitioner able to point out the same. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Court does 6 not find it a fit case to interfere with the order dated 15.11.2010 passed by the Appellate Authority. The writ application is accordingly dismissed. S.Pandey/- (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J)