IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11001 of 2009 1. SEEMA KUMARI, W/O SHRI RAMDEO YADAV, R/O VILLAGE-BARA PANDEYA, P.S.-ROH, DISTRICT- NAWADAH. 2. MITHILESH KUMAR, S/O DINESH YADAV, R/O VILLAGE-BARA PANDEYA, P.S.-ROH, DISTRICT- NAWADAH. 3. BHOLA PRASAD, S/O SHRI SUKHADEO CHAUHAN, R/O VILLAGE-JHAKHAUR, P.S.-ROH, DISRICT- NAWADAH. …………………PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NAWADAH. 4. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, NAWADAH. 5. BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, ROH, NAWADAH. ………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 4 11.10.2010 Three petitioners have moved this Court for direction to the respondents to release their salary which was not paid to them since 1.7.2006 up-to-date. The contention of the petitioners is that they have been validly working as Panchayat Shikshak since 1.7.2006, after Rules came into force, and till date they are working as such. Therefore, they are entitled for their salary. The case of petitioner no.1, admitted by the respondents, is that she was appointed as Shiksha Mitra on 18.05.2005 and her 11 months contractual period of engagement was 2 to expire on 17.04.2006. In normal course, she was entitled for renewal of her contract. However, due to Panchayat elections, her term could not be extended. But the fact is that she continued in the school and, in the meeting of the Sukh Subidha Committee dated 30.06.2006, vide Annexure-8, she was re- engaged and, therefore, she had validly continued as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra and, thereafter her services were converted into Panchayat Shikshak with effect from 1.7.2006 in the Rules. The case of other two petitioners is that the process of appointment of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra had started with effect from 25.4.2006 itself, vide Annexure-6, which is a proceeding of the Sukh Subidha Committee, and pursuant to that they were appointed on 30.06.2006. In support of these petitioners also, learned counsel for the petitioners refers to the same minutes of the meeting of the Sukh Subidha Committee dated 30.06.2006 which is Annexure-8 with the writ application. Thus, all the petitioners were having the status of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra on 3 1.7.2006 and, therefore, in terms of the Rules, they were converted into Panchayat Teachers from that date. Counter affidavit has been filed in which it is stated that there was no extension of service of petitioner no.1 after 17.4.2006. Therefore, on 1.7.2006 she was not a Panchayat Shiksha Mitra and her services were not converted into Panchayat Teacher. Similarly, in respect of petitioner nos.2 and 3, it is contended that these petitioners were illegally appointed only one day before the Rules came into force just to grant them illegal benefit of conversion of post into regular post. In respect of petitioner no.1, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to a letter of the Department contained in memo no. 1219 dated 8.8.2006, which was addressed to all District Superintendents of Education. The letter mentions that the Panchayat Shiksha Mitras, whose services could not be extended due to model code of conduct coming into force, shall be treated as continued on the post on 1.7.2006 and shall be treated as having been converted into Panchayat 4 Shikshak, if, in fact, it is found that they continued in service during the election period even after expiry of their contractual term. Similarly, in respect of petitioner nos.2 and 3, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the said proceedings and resolutions of the Sukh Subidha Committee, as referred to above, to assert that, in the normal process of selection, petitioners were appointed on 30.06.2006. Therefore, their appointments were also valid and legal. The objections of the respondents are in respect of the actual continuance of service of petitioner no.1 even after expiry of her contractual term and validity of appointment of petitioner nos.2 and 3. Therefore, this Court considers it appropriate that the matter should be examined by the Appellate Authority after examining the original records in respect of process of appointment adopted by the concerned Sukh Subidha Committee. The Appellate Authority shall also call for the records of the school and find out whether petitioner no.1 had, as a fact, continued in 5 the school after her contract had expired on 17.04.2006, or not. If the records establish that she had actually continued in the school, then surely, she will be entitled for the benefits in terms of the said memo dated 8.8.2006. Similarly, if it is found to be established from the records of the Sukh Subidha Committee that pursuant to a selection process petitioner nos.2 and 3 are found to have been appointed in normal course on 30.06.2006, there appointment will also be valid in law. The Appellate Authority is definitely in a better position to call for the original records and verify these facts. Therefore, this matter is remitted to the concerned Appellate Authority to examine the factual aspects of the matter and pass appropriate orders in respect of the three petitioners, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. If the Appellate Authority finds that the petitioners were validly appointed and were holding the status of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra on 1.7.2006 after which their services were converted into Panchayat Shikshak, it shall 6 pass consequential orders for payment of their salary. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)