IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.336 of 2011 DILIP SINGH son of Shri Mosafir Singh, resident of village Sheikh Bigha, Police Station Khizarsarai, District Gaya… … Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, 2. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna, 3. The District Magistrate, Gaya at Gaya, 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Gaya at Gaya, 5. The Member District Teacher Appointment Appellate Authority, Gaya at Gaya, 6. The Block Development Officer, Khizarsarai, Gaya, 7. The Block Education Extension Officer, Khizarsarai, Gaya, 8. The Gram Panchayat Bihta, through its Secretary, 9. Sri Sitaram Prasad Yadav, son of Sri Ram Chandra Padav, Ex-Mukhiya, Bihta Gram Panchayat, Police Station Khizarsarai, District Gaya, 10. Sri Giriza Manjhi, son of Shri Nanhak Manjhi, Mukhiya,Bihta Gram Panchayat, village Kodihra, Police Station Khizarsarai, District Gaya, …Respondents/Respondents ----------- 2 28.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant had a right to get a renewal for eleven months after the contract period expired on 20th April, 2006, had he been allowed to continue with the post of Shiksha Mitra till 20th April, 2006, but that was also not done and another 2 person was appointed in his place on account of his absence for bona fide reasons. The facts as emerging from the submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellant show that after the last renewal was granted in favour of the writ petitioner for eleven months in the year 2005, which was to expire on 20th April, 2006, the petitioner could not work till 10.06.2005 on account of medical reasons and he approached the District Magistrate on 18.08.2006 against engagement of another person on the post in question. It has been submitted that the appellant had filed an application for leave on 28.06.2005 and hence the engagement of another person on contract as Shiksha Mitra was illegal and the District Magistrate directed for his removal. We are not aware as to what happened to the claim of the person removed, one Vidyanandan Singh, but so far appointment of the appellant is concerned, the undisputed fact is that the contract period of the appellant’s appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra expired on 20th April, 2006 and till then he was not working on the post nor had he agitated for joining the post. The post stood abolished under the policy of the State Government with 3 effect from 01.07.2006 and those who were holding the post of Shiksha Mitra on that date they became eligible to be considered for appointment as Panchayat Teacher or on equivalent post. In the facts of the case, if the appellant was wrongfully denied the right to work till 20th April, 2006, he can maintain a suit for wages or other compensation, but he had no legal right to occupy the post after 20th April, 2006 in absence of an extension which could be granted only on considering all the relevant facts including his application for extension, health, etc. In the facts of the case, we find no good ground to interfere with the order of the Writ Court, which has rejected the claim of the petitioner. The Letters Patent Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. SC (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)