IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11330 of 2009 KUMARI SHIVANI . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . 2 29.10.2009 Heard the Counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the State. Petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 19.11.2008, whereby the representation filed by the petitioner in the light of the direction of this Court dated 7.5.2008 passed in CWJC No. 7467 of 2008 has been rejected. Petitioner’s claim for payment of salary for the period beyond 31.1.2006, has been rejected but a finding has been recorded that the petitioner can receive her salary for the period up to 31.1.2006. On perusal of the impugned order, I find that petitioner was terminated from her service by the “Sukh Suvidha Committee” on 27.7.2007 till that date Model Code of Conduct has not come into existence, as such the claim of the petitioner that on account of coming into force of the Model Code of Conduct, extension order could not be passed in her case and in the light of the subsequent Government order dated 1.2.2006, she should be deemed to have continued in service and her service as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra extended. Petitioner has placed reliance on the certificate issued by the Headmistress of the concerned school - 2 - contained in Annexure-9 dated 6.2.2008. From the certificate also it is apparent that termination order was issued by the Sukh Suvidha Committee on 27.7.2006 but the petitioner continued to sign the attendance register as per the direction of the Regional Education Officer. The question for consideration is whether the Regional Education Officer has jurisdiction for directing the petitioner to continue in service, despite the fact that she was terminated by the competent committee i.e. Sukh Suvidha Committee. These are the questions which can be considered only when the petitioner will challenge the termination order. I do not find any error in the impugned order. This Court only directs the respondent no.6, the Block Development Officer, Sangrampur, East Champaran to make payment of petitioner’s salary for the period till 31.1.2006 i.e. the date she has legally worked. This application is accordingly, dismissed. (Mridula Mishra,J.) A.Kumar -----------