IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10397 of 2003 Punam Kumari, wife of Rajiv Ranjan Kumar, Resident of Village Rupau, P.S. Rupau, District Nawadah. ---------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through its Secretary, Primary and Adult Education, Bihar, Patna. 2. The District Magistrate, Nawadah. 3. The District Superintendent of Education, Nawadah. 4. The Block Superintendent of Education, Nawadah. 5. The Block Development Officer, Roh, District Nawadah. 6. The Block Education Extension Officer, Kaua Kok, District Nawadah. 7. Anil Kumar Anal, son of not known, Mukhia, Gram Panchayat Bhikhampur, Nawadah. 8. Anita Kumari, Wife of Amarendra Kumar, Resident of village Rupau, P.S. Rupau, District Nawadah. ----------- Respondents ----------- 4 17.09.2010 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. Counsel for the State is present. The following prayer of the petitioner in this writ application:- “1(i) For direction to the Respondent Authorities Respondent No.6, to issue appointment letter to the Petitioner in terms of the resolution dated 2.2.2003 whereby the Petitioner was selected for the post of Shiksha Mitra. (ii) For quashing of the resolution dated 24.2.2003 Memo No.22 issued under the signature of Respondent No.6, whereby the Respondent No.6 without canceling the earlier 2 resolution dated 2.2.2003 has issued another letter selecting the Respondent No.8 on the place of the petitioner for the post of Shiksha Mitra. (iii) For direction to the Respondent Authorities to disposed of representation filed by the Petitioner within stipulated period.” cannot now be at least allowed, inasmuch as, the post of Shiksha Mitra has already been abolished with effect from 1.7.2006. As with regard to the grievance of the petitioner against the appointment of the respondent no.8, this Court would give liberty to the petitioner to approach the Collector of the district and, in case, the Collector of the district would find that there was any inherent infirmity/anomaly in the appointment of respondent no.8, he would issue notice to the respondent no.8 and after giving opportunity of hearing to her (respondent no.8), he would pass an appropriate order irrespective of the fact that the appointment of respondent no.8 may have led to her absorption on the post of Panchayat Shikshak. 3 It is made clear that if the Collector of the district would find after giving notice and also hearing the respondent no.8 that her earlier appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra was bad, he would cancel such appointment as also the resultant absorption on the post of Panchayat Shikshak. Let it be also made clear that this Court has not gone into the merit of the claim of the petitioner as also with regard to the alleged illegality in the selection and appointment of the respondent no.8 on the post of Shiksha Mitra and this issue on remand would be decided by the Collector of the district strictly in accordance with law and the circular/resolution of the Government which were then in vogue. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)