IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18248 of 2010 1. AMAR NATH TRIGUN S/O AWADHESH TRIGUN R/O VILL LAHERI, P.O.LAHERI, P.S.KOCHAS, DISTT-ROHTAS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE ZILA SHIKSHAK NIYOJAN APPELLATE PRADHIKAR ROHTAS, SASARAM THROUGH ITS MEMBER 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER ROHTAS, SASARAM 5. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE ROHTAS 6. THE DISTRICT SUPERITENDENT OF EDUCATION ROHTAS 7. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER KOCHAS, DISTT- ROHTAS 8. THE MUKHIYA , GRAM PANCHAYAT LAHERI, P.O.& BLOCK-KOCHAS, DISTT-ROHTAS 9. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT LAHERI, P.S.KOCHAS, DISTT-ROHTAS ----------- 02. 19.5.2011 Even if the fact that dismissal of the claim of the petitioner by the Appellate Authority, Rohtas at Sasaram on the ground of limitation is ignored, this basic fact that the petitioner is a claimant for his appointment as a Panchayat Shiksha Mitra cannot be overlooked. Since the post of a Panchayat Shiksha Mitra stood abolished from 1.7.2006 after the 2006 Rules came into play, therefore, the petitioner cannot be ordered to be appointed on a post which is non-existent. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner that post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra has become that of a Panchayat Shikshak and therefore, he has a right, is a misplaced kind of submission, because only such teachers who were already appointed as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra, by a deemed fiction 2 became Panchayat teachers and people who were not appointed do not come under the deemed provision. In view of the above no interference is warranted with the order of appellate authority as petitioner does not have a right for such appointment now in the changed circumstance. Writ is dismissed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)