IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 12054 of 2010 1. PRASHANT KUMAR S/O SRI DINESH PRASAD THAKUR R/O VILL.- MOHIUDDINPUR, P.S.- WARISHNAGAR, DISTT.- SAMASTIPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SAMASTIPUR, DISTT.- SAMASTIPUR 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION SAMASTIPUR, DISTT.- SAMASTIPUR 5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER WARSIHNAGAR, DISTT.- SAMASTIPUR 6. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, WARISHNAGAR, DISTT.- SAMASTIPUR 7. THE MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ MOHIUDDINPUR, P.S.- WARISHNAGAR, DISTT.- SAMASTIPUR 8. THE SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ-MOHIUDDINPUR BLOCK- WARISHNAGAR, DISTT.- SAMASTIPUR 9. KALPANA RANI W/O SRI SANJEEV KUMAR THAKUR R/O VILL.- MOHIUDDINPUR, P.O.- HANSA, P.S.- WARISHNAGAR, DISTT.- SAMASTIPUR 10. SHABANA PRAVEEN D/O MD. YASEEN R/O VILL.- MOHIUDDINPUR, P.O.- HANSA, P.S.- WARISHNAGAR, DISTT.- SAMASTIPUR *** For the petitioner : Mr Chitranjan Sinha, Sr Advocate With Mr Mrityunjay Kumar, Advocate Fro the respondents : M/s Abhimanyu Sharma & Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advocates For the S t a t e : Mr A C to S C 19 *** 3 16.09.2010 Petitioner challenges the order dated 26.06.2010 passed by the Collector in Miscellaneous Case No 1 of 2010 filed by respondent No 9 Kalpana Rani. By the said order, the Collector has held the selection and appointment of the petitioner as Shiksha Mitra in the year 2003 to be wrong and has held that the said Kalpana Rani (respondent No 9) ought to have been selected. Pursuant to notice issued by this Court, respondent No 9 has 2 appeared and has filed a detailed counter affidavit. Heard the counsel for the parties and with their consent, the writ petition itself is being disposed of at this stage. On behalf of petitioner, the first and the fatal objection taken is as to the very jurisdiction of the Collector to entertain and decide the matter. In my view, it is rightly submitted that respondent No 9 challenges the selection and appointment of petitioner as Shiksha Mitra which was done in the year, 2003. This matter before the Collector was raised in the year, 2010. In 2003, Government decided to recruit persons to impart education as Shiksha Mitra for a limited period of 11 months. Appropriate notification with guideline was issued in this regard. Petitioner was, accordingly, selected and appointed for a period of 11 months. Subsequently, by another notification of the year 2004, further recruitments were authorised and Panchayats were given power to renew these contracts for another limited period of 11 months. These Rules were then superseded and replaced by the 2005 Rules wherein apart from other, specific provisions were made that any one, aggrieved by any appointment, may appeal to the Collector. These Rules, thereafter, were superseded by the Bihar Primary Panchayat Teachers (Condition of Service and Appointment) Rules, 2006 wherein it was, inter alia, provided that those Shiksha Mitras who were working at the time when these Rules come into force, they would be absorbed as Primary Panchayat Teachers. There were provisions for fresh recruitment as well. Rule 18 then provided that any person aggrieved by selection, appointment or having any dispute with regard to service conditions under the Rules may appeal 3 to the Block Development Officer concerned. This Rule 18 was then, in the year 2008/2009, substituted wherein an appellate authority at district level was created. Thus seen, for resolution of dispute, there were forums created. This Court, in the case of Alok Kumar & Others –Versus- State of Bihar & Others, 2009 (2) PLJR 929, noticing the entire scheme, has clearly held that a challenge to the selection and/or appointment as Shiksha Mitra cannot now be made, the forums, as earlier provided not having been effectively utilised. The post of Shiksha Mitra itself stood abolished in the year 2006. Alongwith it went the jurisdiction of the Collector. Thus, in my view, effectively challenging the selection of the petitioner after seven years before the Collector is of no use and is a futile exercise. Learned counsel for respondent No 9 submits that the matter having come to this Court has been remanded to the Collector and, as such, Collector having decided, it cannot be said that the decision is without jurisdiction. I am afraid I cannot accept the submission because whenever the matter is sent back to the Collector, it is always sent with the direction to be decided in accordance with law. If, as has been shown in this case, Collector had no jurisdiction in the matter for his authority having been abolished, this Court neither could confer jurisdiction on the Collector to decide the matter especially when an alternative forum has already been provided statutorily nor this Court in fact intended to create a jurisdiction in the Collector. It is well established that even consent cannot confer jurisdiction and, as such, the Collector lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the matter at all. It is then submitted that 4 respondent No 9 would suffer if the order of the Collector was set aside. In my view, even if the order of the Collector is to be sustained, it cannot be sustained in so far as selection of respondent No 9 is concerned for the simple reason, the selection of respondent No 9 or for that matter, the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No 9, was with regard to the post of Shiksha Mitra which stood abolished in the year, 2006 itself. No direction can be issued by any authority to absorb respondent No 9 on the dead and abolished post of Shiksha Mitra. No relief could be granted to respondent No 9 even otherwise in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Alok Kumar & Others (supra) and in view of the facts noted, the impugned order of the Collector, as contained in Annexure-1, cannot be sustained and it is set aside accordingly. The writ application is, accordingly, allowed. Petitioner would, thus, be entitled to receive payment of his remuneration subject to petitioner having worked for the period in question. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)