IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8940 of 2010 1. MUNNI KUMARI D/O SRI SHEO NARAYAN SHARMA R/O VILL.- KHAUNA, P.O. GANGAPUR, P.S. HULASGANJ, DISTT.- JEHANABAD Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE DISTT. MAGISTRATE, JEHANABAD 2. THE MEMBER, DISTRICT TEACHER EMPLOYMENT APPELLATE AUTHORITY, JEHANABAD 3. THE ADDL. COLLECTOR, JEHANABAD 4. THE DISTT. EDUCATION SUPERINTENDENT, JEHANABAD 5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, HULASGANJ 6. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, HULASGANJ 7. THE MUKHIYA GRAM PANCHAYAT, KEUR 8. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT KEUR 9. BABY KUMARI W/O RAMASHRAY SHARMA R/O VILL.- KHAUNA, P.O. GANGAPUR, P.S. HULASGANJ, DISTT.- JEHANABAD ----------- 3 05/05/2011 The dispute in the present writ application is claim of the petitioner to be appointed as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra. The exercise for such appointment was carried out in the year 2005 and it is the allegation of the petitioner that respondent no. 9 Baby Kumari came to be appointed at the cost of the petitioner in the sense that the petitioner had higher marks than the private respondent no. 9 but still for extraneous reasons respondent no. 9 was accommodated and she was ousted. It is thereafter that she has been pursuing the matter before various - 2 - authorities and moving the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority is part of the said exercise. His submission is that the impugned order dated 19.02.2010 contained in annexure-7 is an erroneous finding based on erroneous logic that since the present petitioner got married, she ceased to be a resident of the Panchayat in question and she lost her right for appointment rightfully. The evidence showing that the marriage was performed at a subsequent date, however, she still continues to be the resident of the same Panchayat have been brought on record with the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner. Whatever be the rationale or reasoning giving by the Appellate Authority but the finding of the Appellate Authority on one issue cannot be faulted. Appointment in issue relates to the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra. Private respondent no. 9 was appointed in the year 2005. After 2006 rules coming into existence with regard to such appointments, the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra disappeared or became non existent with effect from 1.7.2006. If that is the position, then all the arguments - 3 - and the adjudication remained academic as no relief can be granted to the petitioner because the petitioner cannot be appointed on a non existent post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra and even otherwise it is too late in the day now to give a direction for appointment when the private respondent as of now she has already worked for more than six years. The reasoning given by the Appellate Authority refusing to give any direction for appointment of the petitioner as a Panchayat Shiksha Miktra in light of the changed situation is correct and the whole exercise is now futile. This writ application is thus dismissed. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)