IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1099 of 2011 Mithilesh Harizan, son of Annulal Harizan, resident of village- Dhurpaili, P.S. Amaur, via- Jalalgarh, District- Purnea………. Petitioner Versus 1.The State Of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate, Purnea 3.The District Superintendent of Education, Purnea. 4.The B.D.O., Amaur, Purnea. 5.The Block Education Extension officer, Amaur, Purnea. 6.The Mukhiya Dhurpaili Panchayat Raj, Amaur, Purnea. 7.The Secretary, Dhurpaili Panchayat Raj, Amaur, Purnea. 8. The Head Master, Middle School, Bagdar, Amaur, purnea. …………………. Respondents. ----------- 2. 29.7.2011 The petitioner seeks a direction upon the respondents to re-appoint the petitioner as Shiksha Mitra in the school, Bagdar and also to pay the monthly salary of second extension from 9.3.2005 to 9.3.2006 and for similar other reliefs. The petitioner was initially appointed as Shiksha Mitra on 9.3.2004. Thereafter by order dated 19.2.2005, the petitioner’s contract was extended for a further period of 11 months. The petitioner claims that thereafter he was again appointed by the office order dated 9.3.2006 by the Mukhia of the Gram Panchayat, but it is stated that the Block Education Extension Officer, Amaur, Purnea restrained the petitioner from joining. The petitioner claims to have passed the Intermediate Examination on 31.5.2007 and he claims the benefit of the 2 Circular dated 4.7.2008 issued by the State Government. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.5, Block Education Extension Officer, wrongly prevented the petitioner from continuing as Shiksha Mitra and had that not been done then with effect from 1.7.2006, the petitioner would have automatically become a Panchayat teacher. It is further submitted that the petitioner having worked for the period from 9.3.2005 to 9.3.2006 is entitled to the salary for the period, which has been illegally withheld by the respondent authorities. On a consideration of the materials on the record, this Court finds that as late as on 30.10.2008, the petitioner had not raised any claim regarding being permitted to join the said school either on general grounds or on the basis of the Intermediate qualification obtained by him, as in his letter dated 30.10.2008 (Annexure-5) addressed to the Mukhia of the Gram Pancjhayat, he had only sought the issue of an experience certificate for the purpose of getting another employment. For the first time, the petitioner approached the District Magistrate, Purnea through his letter dated 7.12.2010 stating that his third reemployment on the post of Shiksha Mitra should be ordered. From the aforesaid materials on the record, it is evident 3 that the petitioner having not been allowed to join in March, 2006 by the Block Education Extension Officer had given up on his job of Shiksha Mitra. It also appears from the materials on the record that the petitioner was earlier a Matriculate and subsequently in the year 2004, the State Government had raised the qualification for appointment of Shiksha Mitra from Matriculate to Intermediate pass and for the said reason, he was not allowed to work. Subsequently in the year 2008, the State Government came out with a Circular in which it is stated that those Shiksha Mitras were to be continued in service, if they have acquired the qualification of Intermediate pass within 33 months from their initial joining as Shiksha Mitra. The petitioner, thus, does not fulfil the said qualification also. In the above circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in the writ application and it is, accordingly, dismissed. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J. )