IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6759 of 2010 1. YOGENDRA KUMAR S/O SHEO NANDAN SINGH R/O VILL +P.O.BELAR, P.S.KASHICHAK, DISTT-NAWADAH Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. DIRECTOR , PRIMARY EDUCATION BIHAR, PATNA 3. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE NAWADAH 4. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER NAWADAH 5. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION NAWADAH 6. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER KASHICHAK, DISTT- NAWADAH 7. MUKHIYA , GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ BELAR, P.S.KASHICHAK, DISTT-NAWADAH 8. PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ KASHICHAK, DISTT-NAWADAH 9. SHRI RAJ KISHORE S/O RAM SWARUP NONIA R/O VILL +P.O.+P.S.BELAR, P.S.KASHICHAK, DISTT-NAWADAH 10. NAWAL PRASAD S/O SHRI GAURI SHANKAR MISTRI R/O VILL +P.O.+P.S.BELAR, P.S.KASHICHAK, DISTT-NAWADAH 11. KUMARI MAMTA W/O SHRI SUNIL KUMAR R/O VILL +P.O.+P.S.BELAR, P.S.KASHICHAK, DISTT-NAWADAH ----------- 2 28.7.2010 Heard Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner and learned Counsel for the State. By this writ application, the petitioner has challenged the order of the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority, Nawadah as passed in Case no. 111 of 2009 being order dated 16.3.2010 (Annexure- 9). Having perused the order, in question, I find that the order on the face of it is unsustainable and is liable to be quashed and is quashed for the reasons as noted hereinafter- As apparent from the order itself he challenged the order - 2 - before the Tribunal in 2009 as to the appointment of the petitioner as Shiksha Mitra in the year 2003. The petitioner was appointed as Shiksha Mitra on contractual basis in the year 2003, which contract was renewed at three times upto 2006. In 2006 the State Government came up with the Bihar Primary Panchayat Teachers (Appointment and Service of Condition) Rules, 2006. By virtue of this rule, all Shiksha Mitras, who were found working earlier on contract basis were absorbed as permanent Panchayat Teachers. Accordingly, the petitioner was also so absorbed and has been working as Panchayat Teacher. It is at this stage that some persons , who were not selected as Shiksha Mitra in the year 2003 now chose to challenge the same before this Court when this Court remanded the matter to the tribunal to decide in accordance with law. From reading the order it is clear that though the petitioner’s appointment as Shiksha Mitra was in question, who was not made a party but this Court would not base its order on this fact alone, for the order is wholly without jurisdiction even otherwise. The challenge of appointment had to be made in the year 2003. It is being made before the tribunal , for the first time, in 2009, after lapse of six years. This cannot be permitted as has been consistently held by this Court including in the case of Alok Kumar –v- State of Bihar since reported in 2009(2)PLJR 929. The notification creating the post of Shiksha Mitra itself had provided that any one aggrieved by selection had to protest within thirty days of the selection. That challenge had to be made in the year 2003 itself. It was not so made. Even when twice subsequently the - 3 - contract of employment was renewed in the years 2004 an 2005, no challenge was made. Then when the petitioner got absorbed as Panchayat Teacher, again no challenge was made . Under the appointment rules aforesaid in terms of rule 18 thereof , as originally enacted, the challenge had to be made within thirty days before the Bock Development Officer, again it was not so made. Then again when the tribunal was constituted by repealing the Block Development Officer, in rule 18 of the rules aforesaid by Government notification constituting the tribunal it is again provided that the challenge has to be made within thirty days of the selection, which was not again made. Thus the challenge being belated could not be entertained by the tribunal at all .That being so, the tribunal acted wholly without jurisdiction in entertaining the matter itself. The impugned order of the tribunal is set aside and it shall be deemed that the petitioner has continued and is continuing in service for all purposes. The writ petition is allowed. singh (Navaniti Prasad Singh,J)