IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.858 of 2009 PANKAJ KUMAR SHARMA, S/o Sri Chandrika Sharma, Resident of village- Babhanaia, Post Paharpur, Police Station-Garkha, District-Saran (Chapra) ………………………………………..Petitioner. Versus -With- CWJC No.725 of 2009 AJAY KUMAR RAY, S/o Shri Bachcha Ray, Resident of Village-Mahamda Mangal Tola, Police Station-Garkha, District-Saran (Chapra) …….Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna 3. The Commissioner, Saran Division, Saran 4. The District Magistrate, Chapra 5. The Deputy Development Commissioner , Chapra 6. The District Superintendent of Education –cum-Co-ordinator Sarva Siksha Abhiyan , Chapra 7. The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Chapra 8. the Executive Magistrate, Sadar-cum-Senior Incharge Officer of Panchayat Teachers Appointment of Garkha Block, Chapra 9. The Block Development Officer , Garkha, Chapra 10. The Block Education Extension Officer , Garkha, Chapra 11. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Mahamda, Garkha, Chapra 12. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Mahamda, Garkha, Chapra……………………………….Respondents (in both cases) 13. The Head Master, Primary School, Babhanaia, Garkha, Chapra(respondent in C.W.J.C. No. 858/09) 14. . The Head Master, Govt. Middle School, Mahamda, Garkha, Chapra(respondent in C.W.J.C. No. 725/09) ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Gyan Prakash (in both cases) For the State : Mr. Ramsagar Singh, A.C. to G.P. 13 (in both cases) 3. 17.03.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the state. Prayer of the petitioners in both writ applications is for quashing Memo No. 330 dated 31.12.2008 issued by the District Magistrate, Saran, Chapra. Through this letter, the District Magistrate has opined that service of the petitioners was - 2 - irregular and the Mukhiya/Gram Panchayat Samiti was directed to take action for termination of their services. The reason for holding petitioners’ service irregular and illegal is that Pankaj Sharma was appointed as backward caste candidate on the post of Panchayat Shikcha Mitra in the year, 2003 considering his percentage of marks i.e. 63 per cent while in fact, he passed matriculation in the IInd division having 442 marks only which is approximately 55 per cent. In the case of Ajay Kumar Roy, the opinion of the District Magistrate is that on the date of appointment, he was underage, less than 18 years, as such; he is not eligible for being appointed on the post of Panchayat Shikcha Mitra. Counsel for the petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit in order to bring some relevant facts on records of the case. Through supplementary affidavit, the developments which have taken place subsequently to the issuance of impugned order have been brought on record. In the light of the direction of District Magistrate, Saran, Chapra contained in Memo No. 330 dated 31/12/2008, Gram Panchayat Shikcha Samiti/Sukh Subidha Samiti held a meeting on 06.01.2009 which was attended by the members of Sukh Subidha Samiti/Panchayat Shikcha Samiti , the matter was disposed of and finally, it was decided that the District Magistrate has no jurisdiction under 2006 rules either to pass any such order or direct for termination of petitioners’ service. It was also resolved that Ajay - 3 - Kumar Ray was not underage rather his age was 18 years and 3 months on the date of his appointment. Under the guidelines for appointment of Panchayat Shikcha Mitra, no minimum age has been fixed though maximum age has been fixed as 30 years. The opinion of the Collector regarding underage is not correct. The appointment of Ajay Kumar Ray was considered as legal and regular by the Panchayat Shikcha Samiti/Sukh Subidha Samiti. Similarly, in the case of Pankaj Kumar Sharma, the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti was that there was no forgery or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner. He passed in IInd division with 442 marks; percentage of marks shown as 63 per cent was an error committed by the person who made an entry. The resolution also indicates that since the date, the petitioner’s first engagement as Panchayat Shikcha Mitra till his absorption under 2006 rules, his service all through has been found satisfactory. Panchayat Shikcha Samiti/Sukh Subidha Samiti took the decision that both the petitioners were appointed regularly in consonance with the guidelines/rules relevant for such appointments. Considering that, the competent authority i.e. Panchayat Shikcha Samiti/Sukh Subidha Samiti has already taken a decision on this matter. Petitioners are still continuing on the post, as such liable for arrears of salary as well as current month to month salary. No further interference is needed However, the opinion of the District Magistrate - 4 - contained in Memo No. 330 dated 31.12.2008 is irrelevant and completely without jurisdiction. Both applications are disposed of. AKV/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)