IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6957 of 2010 1. DEEPAK KUMAR S/O CHANDESHWAR SINGH R/O VILL BAIKATHPUR, P.S.KHUSRUPUR IN THE DISTRICT OF PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY THROUGH PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-CHAIRMAN, BIHAR EDUCATION PROJECT PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION - CUM-DISTRICT PROGRAMME CO-ORDINATOR PATNA 4. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER KHUSRUPUR, PATNA 5. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY BAIKATHPUR PANCHAYAT , BAIKATHPUR, PATNA 6. THE MUKHIYA BAIKATHPUR PANCHAYAT, BAIKATHPUR, PATNA ----------- 2 18/01/2011 Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State, the Court is constrained to record that there is no legal infirmity or factual infirmity which emerges from the impugned order contained in annexure-1. Admitted position is that the petitioner steps into the shoes of one Mr. Anand Mohan Kumar who was initially appointed but terminated on the ground that he did not have the requisite marks for being appointed to the post of Shiksha Mitra at the relevant time. In view of the vacancy caused by Mr. Anand - 2 - Mohan Kumar petitioner stepped into his shoes but it transpires that by intervention of the High Court at the level of the Division Bench, Anand Mohan Kumar was reinstated by virtue of which petitioner came to be ousted. This is the finding which has been recorded by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority. Petitioner has challenged the said order. Question is whether he has a legal right for appointment; more so on the post of Shiksha Mitra when the post does not exist any more. Petitioner was never a claimant, independent of the post in question. Therefore, his prayer that an observation should be made by this Court to accommodate him under any vacancy is not tenable. Even otherwise, no direction can be given to appoint him on the post of Shiksha Mitra in the above stated circumstance. No case is made out for interference with the impugned order. This writ application is, thus, dismissed. Petitioner, however, would be entitled to payment of salary/remuneration for the period he had worked as such on the post which should be made within - 3 - a reasonable time frame of three months from the date of communication or production of a copy of this order. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)