IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.15921 OF 2007 UDAY THAKUR, S/O SHRI BRAHAMDEO THAKUR, R/O VILLAGE MURLI PARSAUNI, POLICE STATION BALTHA, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN. …………………PETITIONER. VERSUS 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH ITS EDUCATION SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 2.THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, WEST CHAMPARAN, BETTIAH. 3.THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, WEST CHAMPARAN, BETTIAH. 4.THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, WEST CHAMPARAN, BETTIAH. 5.THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SIKTA, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN, BETTIAH. 6.THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, SIKTA, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN, BETTIAH. 7.THE BLOCK EXTENSION EDUCATION OFFICER, SIKTA, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN, BETTIAH. 8.THE HEAD MASTER, GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL, GAURIPUR AT SIKTA, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN, BETTIAH. 9.THE PANCHAYAT SEVAK, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, PARSAUNI, P.S GALTHAR, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN. 10.THE MUKHIYA OF GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, PARSAUNI, P.S BALTHA, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN.. 11.DHANANJAY KUMAR, S/O SHIR RAMANAND SAH, R/O VILLAGE PARSAUNI, P.S BALTHAR, SIKTA, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN, BETTIAH. ……………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 03/ 26.07.2011 Heard counsel for the parties. An application for intervention has been filed on Behalf of Dhananjay Kumar in I.A No. 4127 of 2008. For the reasons mentioned therein the prayer for impleading Dhananjay Kumar as a party to this writ application is allowed by adding him as respondent no. 11 to this writ application. 2 The grievance of the petitioner in this case with regard to his continuation on the post of Shiksha Mitra or not accepting of his joining on the post of Shiksha Mitra would be solely dependent on the fact as to whether he was ever given extension on the post of Shiksha Mitra after completion of tenure of eleven months. Mr. Kalyan Shankar, counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Shiksha Mitra on 21.05.2005 and that his joining was also accepted after allowing him to undergo training of 30 days. There is however, no order showing the acceptance of joining of the petitioner on record but then it is said that the petitioner’s tenure of appointment of 11 months came to an end because he had also remained unauthorizedly absent from duty and thus respondent no. 11 was appointed in his place. It is not in doubt that the petitioner’s tenure of 11 months by virtue of his order of engagement dated 21.05.2005 had expired prior to 01.07.2006 and 3 therefore, he cannot be said to be working as Shiksha Mitra on 01.07.2006, so as to get the benefit of his being absorbed on the post of Panchayat Shikshak in terms of Rule 20(iii) of 2006 Rules. The case of the petitioner, however, is that he had gone on leave with the permission of the competent authority but on return from leave his joining was not accepted only due to malafide on the part of Mukhia who had appointed respondent no. 11 in place of the petitioner. He would also point out that subsequently such selection and appointment of respondent no. 11 was questioned and that has also been cancelled. The respondent no. 11 has filed his separate writ application in C.W.J.C NO. 5744 of 2010 assailing his removal from the post of Shiksha Mitra and taking away the consequential benefit of absorption on the post of Panchayat Shikshak. In the considered opinion of this Court, the nature of dispute as to whether the appointment of petitioner or respondent no. 11 on the post of Shiksha Mitra was correct and whether they in exclusion to 4 each other would be deemed to be continuing in service on 30.06.2006 on the post of Shiksha Mitra so as to get the benefit of the post of Panchayat Shikshak being essentially a question of fact was required to be adjudicated by the statuory forum namely District Teachers Appellate Authority under Rule 18 of the Panchayat Teachers Rules 2006. Admittedly, the Authority in its order dated 22.12.2009 had rejected the case of the petitioner but at the same time it had also set aside the appointment of respondent no. 11. The writ petition of respondent no. 11, C.W.J.C NO.5744 of 2010, actually is against the said order of the Authority wherein, it is said that this Court has issued notice to the writ petitioner of this case, impleaded as respondent no. 13 in that case. Thus it becomes clear that this writ application with the limited prayer has become infructuous, inasmuch as, the petitioner now has to assail the correctness of the order dated 22.12.2009 passed by the Authority in case no. 195 of 5 2009. Since, the said order is already the subject matter of C.W.J.C NO. 5744 of 2010 at the instance of respondent no. 11, the petitioner would also be at liberty to also file his writ petition assailing the same order which is subject matter of writ petition of respondent no. 11 C.W.J.C No.5744 of 2010. If the petitioner would file a fresh writ petition within a period of one month from today the same would be heard together along with C.W.J.C. No. 5744 of 2010 filed by Respondent no. 11. With the aforementioned observation, liberty and direction, this application is disposed of. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)