IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11181 of 2008 Smt.Kavita Kumari, aged about 25 years, wife of Kumar Kishore Prasad, resident of village Pidrahi, P.O. Sanokhar, Panchayat Medhauna, Block Allouli, District- Khagaria. …………… Petitioner Versus 1.The State Of Bihar 2.Secretary, Primary & Adult Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, patna 3.District Magistrate, Khagaria 4.District Superintendent of Education-cum- District Programme Coordinator, Khagaria 5.Block Development Officer, Allouli, District- Khagaria 6.Block Education Extension Officer, Allouli, District- Khagaria 7.Jagdish Chandra Basu, Ex-Mukhiya, son of Late Laxmi Narayan Yadav, Village & Post- Medhauna, via Shakarpura, P.S. Allouli, District- Khagaria 8.Mulhiya, Medhauna Panchayat, Block Allouli, District- Khagaria 9.Panchayat Secretary, Medhauna Panchayat, Block Allauli, District- Khagaria 10.Kusum Lal Yadav @ Kusum Bhushan Kumar, son of Devan Yadav 11.Dev Narayan Paswan @ Navin Kumar, son of Nathuni Paswan 12.Gauri Shankar Paswan, son of Ram Shankar Paswan 13.Dularchan Paswan, son of Vishundev Paswan. All respondents 10 to 13 are resident of Panchayat Medhauna, Block Allauli, District- Khagaria. …………… Respondents ---------------------------------- 2. 20/09/2011 By order dated 2.2.2008, as contained in Annexure-22, the Collector has considered the representation of the petitioner as per direction of this Court and has rejected the same by a reasoned order. The Collector has found that after first terms of the 2 petitioner as Shiksha Mitra was over, she did not submit requisite form duly filled up for her re-engagement. As such, other persons were appointed. Grievance of the petitioner is that although she had filled up the form and handed it over to Mukhiya, the same was not considered and was misplaced and hence, she was illegally denied re-engagement. This fact is not established from any material available on record except for the pleadings of the petitioner that she had filed the form before the Mukhiya. Even if petitioner would have been re-engaged as Shiksha Mitra, she could continue only for 33 months. Her first term commenced from 1.2.2003. Therefore, her three terms would have expired in 2005. Hence, she would not have been found continuing as Shiksha Mitra on the date on which 2006 Rules came into force to get any benefit under the Rules. This Court, therefore, does not find any merit in this writ application. The same is accordingly dismissed. Pradeep/ ( J. N. Singh,J.)