IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11120 of 2008 NATHUNI THAKUR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr R.K.Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr Sunbil Kumar Mandal, SC 15 Mr Bipin Kumar, JC to SC 15 ------- 3. 09.04.2009 Heard leaned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner was appointed as a Shiksha Mitra on 14.2.2003 for a period of eleven months. After a second extension, the third extension for a period of eleven months was granted on 18.12.2004 i.e. till 18.11.2005. The government instruction did not visualise any extension after a total period of 33 months. The services of the petitioner as a Shiksha Mitra were then extended by an order dated 30.3.2006 for a period of eleven months. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that by virtue of this extension he acquired the status of Panchayat Shikshak under Rule 20 of the Bihar Primary Teachers (Appointment and Service Condition) Rules 2006 by operation of law on 1.7.2006. He therefore assails the order of the Block Education Extension Officer, Belsand denying him salary from 31.3.2008 and declining him work. In support of the extension granted to the petitioner on 30.3.2006 learned counsel relies on a letter dated 20.1.2006 of the Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, that the matter for extension of the total tenure of 33 months only for engagement of a Shiksha Mitra was engaging the attention of the Government. Therefore those persons whose third tenure of eleven months was going to expire or had expired may be considered for extension, subject to any final decision of the government which has followed on 8.8.2006. Since the learned Counsel for the petitioner has produced a copy of the letter dated 20.1.2006 during course of his submissions without putting the same on affidavit and consequent opportunity to the State Counsel to meet the same this Court is not persuaded to pass any positive order at this stage without adequate opportunity to the State to meet the case. The letters dated 20.1.2006 and 8.8.2006, read together reveal the policy that if formal orders for renewal of the contract could not be passed due to coming into force of the model code of conduct, the services of such teachers be deemed to be renewed and they shall acquire the status of Panchayat Shikshak from 1.7.2006 under Rule 20 of the Bihar Primary Teachers (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules 2006. The letters do not provide for any modification or extension of the policy. That the contract be renewed for a maximum of three terms of eleven months each. This direction was obviously in context of those in their third renewal and with respect to whom a formal order could not be issued on account of the model code of conduct. This Court finds no material to hold that a valid fourth extension of the contract could be granted. Issues of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution for such selective extension of contract for a fourth term shall also arise for consideration. The matter is remanded to the respondents to examine the legality of a fourth extension of the contract and then take a fresh decision with regard to the grievance of the petitioner in accordance with law within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. The argument that similarly situated persons may have been allowed to continue does not impress the Court. There can be no invocation of Article 14 to perpetuate an illegality, unless there be legal sanction for a fourth extension of the contract. The writ application stands disposed off accordingly. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)