IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1016 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14666 of 2010 With Interlocutory Application No. 4629 of 2011 And Interlocutory Application No. 4630 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Ramesh Kumar Bimal, S/o Sri Onkar Nath Choubey, R/o Village- Parmanpur, P.S.-Nawanagar, District-Buxar. 2. Smt. Mantu Kumari, W/o Shri Ram Raj Ram, R/o Village-Parharia, P.S.-Nawanagar, District-Buxar. 3. Smt. Bindu Kumari, W/o Ramesh Kumar Bimal, R/o Village- Parmanpur, P.S.-Nawanagar, District-Buxar. .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Commissioner and Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Collector, Buxar. 3. The District Education Officer, Buxar. 4. The Block Development Officer, Nawanagar, P.S.-Nawanagar, District-Buxar. 5. The Gram Panchayat, Parmanpur, P.O.-Parmanpur, P.S.-Nawanagar, District-Buxar through its Mukhiya Shri Anil Kumar Choubey, S/o Sri Onkar Nath Choubey, R/o P.O.-Parmanpur, P.S.-Nawanagar, District- Buxar. 6. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Parmanpur, P.O.- Parmanpur, P.S.-Nawanagar, District-Buxar. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Jitendra Singh, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Satyabir Bharti, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ajay, SC 11. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 3 18-07-2011 Re. Interlocutory Application No. 4629 of 2011: This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed by the appellants for condonation of delay of eight days occurred in filing the present Letters Patent Appeal. Patna High Court LPA No.1016 of 2011 (3) dt.18-07-2011 2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the delay is condoned. Re. Letters Patent Appeal No. 1016 of 2011: This appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent arises from the judgment and order dated 25th April 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in above CWJC No. 14666 of 2010. The appellants are the writ petitioners. The Mukhia of the Gram Panchayat- Parmanpur, P.S.-Nawanagar, District-Buxar appointed the appellants as Shiksha Mitras on 29th June 2006. In view of the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teacher (Employment & Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 2006’), the appellants were deemed to be appointed as Panchayat Shikshak with effect from 1st July 2006. Since their appointment, a complaint was lodged before the Appellate Authority in respect of the appointment of the appellant nos. 1 and 3. It was alleged that the appointments of the appellant nos. 1 and 3 were made by the Mukhia of the said Gram Panchayat illegally, since the said appellants were related to the Mukhia. On perusal of the records, the Appellate Authority found that the appointments of the appellants were made without following due procedure within a week preceding the introduction of the Rules of 2006. Evidently, the appointments were made to reap the benefit of regularization of service with effect from 1st July 2006 under the Rules of 2006. In view of the aforesaid finding the Appellate Authority set aside the selection and appointment made by the Mukhia of the Gram Panchayat on the eve of the introduction of the Rules of 2006. Patna High Court LPA No.1016 of 2011 (3) dt.18-07-2011 3 The challenge to the order of the Appellate Authority dated 22nd July 2010 made in Appeal No. 54 of 2009 before the learned single Judge in above CWJC No. 14666 of 2010 has failed. Learned Advocate Mr. Jeetendra Singh has appeared for the appellants. Mr. Singh has submitted that the appointments of the appellants were made after following the due procedure as reflected in the order of the Appellate Authority. He has further submitted that there was no challenge to the appointment of the appellant no. 2. She was not a party before the Appellate Authority. Nevertheless, her appointment has been cancelled without affording her an opportunity of defence or of hearing. He has also submitted that nobody else had lodged the claim for such appointment. Therefore also the appointments made on clear vacancies should not be interfered with. At the last, he has submitted that the appellants be paid salary for the services rendered by them. We see no substance in the submissions made by Mr. Singh. It is more than evident that the appointment of the appellants was made clandestinly by the Mukhia of the Gram Panchayat without following the due procedure. Whatever procedure might have been followed was a camouflage. The intention was to avail of the benefit of regularization of service under the Rules of 2006. Such clandestine appointment cannot be upheld. May be, the appellant no. 2 was not a party before the Appellate Authority, but there is no gainsaying that she too is the beneficiary of the clandestine appointments made by the Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat. Besides her case has been considered by the learned single Judge. We see no substance in this Appeal. The Appeal is Patna High Court LPA No.1016 of 2011 (3) dt.18-07-2011 4 dismissed in limine. Interlocutory applications are disposed of. For the unpaid salary or the honorarium, the appellants may make representation before the District Education Officer, Buxar. The District Education Officer will decide such application, if made, within one month from the date of the receipt of the application. If the appellants have not been paid for the service rendered by them, the outstanding salary may be paid to the appellants. Sujit/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)