IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.19799 of 2010 Avinash Kumar, son of late Anandy Prasad Singh, resident of village Tetarabad, Chandpura, P.S.Khagaria, District Khagaria-------petitioner Versus 1.The State of Bihar 2.The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Department, Bihar 3.The District Magistrate, Khagaria 4.Yogendra Paswan, Member, District Teacher’s Selection Appellate Tribunal, Khagaria 5.The District Superintendent of Education cum District Programme Co-ordinator, Khagaria 6.The Block Education Extension Officer cum Block Co-ordinator, Khagaria 7.The Headmaster Middle School, Gahiyar, District Khagaria 8.The Panchayat Secretary Gram Panchayat Raj Tetrabad District Khagaria 9.The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Tetrabad, District Khagaria 10.Roshanlal Singh, Assistant Teacher, Middle School, Gahiyar, District Khagaria-------------------------------------------------respondents ----------- For the petitioner :Mr.Ranjit Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State :Mr.Ajay, S.C. XI ------ 2. 08.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 19.5.2010 passed in Appeal Case No. 380-1/09 by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Khagaria dismissing the appeal of the petitioner. The petitioner was admittedly working as Shiksha Mitra in the Middle School, Gram Panchayat Tetarabad and was initially appointed by letter dated 14.2.2003 and two extensions were also granted to 2 him. Thereafter it appears that no further extension was granted to the petitioner and the petitioner also admittedly applied for a loan under P.M.R.Y. for starting a shop at Jalkora and in place of the petitioner the respondent authorities appointed respondent No.9 Roshanlal Singh. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had returned the loan taken under P.M.R.Y. within a month and also he continued to work in the concerned school but the authorities did not make any payment to the petitioner due to mala fide intention. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that it is evident from the action of the petitioner that correct steps have been taken by the respondents as the petitioner had on his own left his work and informed the authorities about the same and his very act for taking loan under P.M.R.Y. for starting a shop goes to show that he was not interested in his teaching work and for his self-employment as a shopkeeper he had taken loan under P.M.R.Y. It is further submitted that the District Teacher 3 Employment Appellate Authority has rightly rejected his appeal by the order dated 19.5.2010. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds sufficient force in the submission of learned counsel for the State. It is evident from the action of the petitioner that he had not continued under the employment of the Gram Panchayat as a Shiksha Mitra since voluntarily and willingly he had started his shop after admittedly taking a loan under the P.M.R.Y. and the plea taken that the petitioner had returned the loan within a month can be of no help to him as he had himself left his employment under the Gram Panchayat for starting his own business. Apart from the same, it is evident that no further extension was granted to the petitioner after the expiry of his last contract some time in March, 2006 and thus no plea of his continuance as Shiksha Mitra under the employment of Gram Panchayat can be taken. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court does not find any occasion to interfere with the impugned 4 order dated 19.5.2010 of the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority. The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) Spal/