IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15536 of 2007 1. Awadesh Prasad, Son of Sri Ram Barat Singh, R/o-Vill.-Bagitpur (Chand), P.S. & P.O.-Belaganj, District-Gaya. 2. Monohar Kumar, Son of Nand Lal Chaudhary, R/o-Vill.-Mana Bigha (Bagitpur), P.S. & P.O.-Belaganj, District-Gaya. –Petitioners. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar. 2. District Magistrate, Gaya. 3. District Superintendent of Education, Gaya. 4. B.D.O., Belaganj, Gaya. 5. Panchayat Sachiv, Bagitpur, P.S.-Belaganj, Gaya. 6. Mukhiya, Bgitpur, P.S.-Belaganj, Gaya. –Respondents. ----------- 07 28.03.2011 The petitioners were selected and appointed as Shiksha Mitra in the year 2003. There were no complaints against their appointment. Their appointment was for the period of 11 months which was then extended and ultimately in the year 2006 the Bihar Panchayat Teachers Appointment Rules came into being and all those Shiksha Mitra who were working were absorbed as Panchayat Teachers now on permanent basis and fixed honorarium. Once petitioners were so absorbed, it appears from the counter affidavit that in 2007 complaints were filed before the District Magistrate, Gaya regarding the petitioners’ initial appointment as Shiksha Mitra in the year 2003. Let it be noted that under Rule-18 of the 2006 Rules, as it then existed, it was the Block Development Officer who was the designated authority to receive, entertain and decide the complaints and, that too, in respect of appointment of Panchayat Teachers. So far as Shiksha Mitra is concerned, the post stood abolished in the year 2006 itself, still the District Magistrate entertain the belated complaint and ordered enquiry and it is pursuant to the said enquiry the petitioners are being terminated. The pleadings being complete, with consent of parties, - 2 - the matter has been heard at this stage itself for final disposal. Having considered the matter, in my view, this Court has repeatedly held that when the appointments were made as Shiksha Mitra in the year 2003, there were provisions for entertaining complaints, those provisions not having been invoked by the aggrieved persons, now after four years when that posts are abolished and those persons are absorbed as Panchayat Teachers, such objections cannot be entertained at that belated stage. There cannot be a challenge to the appointment of a person as Shiksha Mitra when he has ceased to be a Shiksha Mitra and has become Panchayat Teacher and the post of Shiksha Mitra itself has been abolished. In that view of the matter, the impugned order of the Collector, as contained in Anneuxre-9, being the direction to the Block Development Officer, cannot be sustained. It is, accordingly, quashed. If the posts are still vacant petitioners could be reemployed in those posts. So far as the remuneration is concerned, for the period for which petitioners have not worked they will not be entitled to any remuneration but for the period they have worked it would be the duty of the Panchayat Secretary to see that full remuneration is paid and that the reinstatement orders are issued within a fortnight of production of a copy of this order before the concerned Panchayat Secretary whose responsibility would be to implement the orders of this Court. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)