IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6122 of 2007 VIRENDRA KUMAR Son of Sri Deep Lal Sah, resident of village Khopi, P.S. Runi Saidpur, District Sitamarhi. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The District Magistrate, Sitamarhi. 3. The District Superintendent of Education Cum Project Officer, Sitamarhi. 4. The Block Development Officer, Runi Saidpur Block, District Sitamarhi. 5. The Block Education Extension Officer, Runi Saidpur Block, Runi Saidpur, District Sitamarhi. 6. The Mukhiya, Dhanukhi Gram Panchayat, Dhanukhi under Runi Saidpur Block, P.S. Runi Saidpur, Districft Sitamarhi. 7. The Secretary, Dhanukhi Gram Panchayat, Dhanukhi, under Saidpur Block, P.S. Runi Saidpur, district Sitamarhi. Mujim Baitha son of Fakira Baitha, resident of village Dhanukhi, P.O. Bahilwara, Dhanukhi, P.S. Runi Saidpur, District Sitamarhi. ----------- 2 26.10.2010 Having heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for State as with regard to the following relief:- “(i)It may be declared that the petitioner, who is having higher marks for the appointment of „Panchayat Shiksha Mitra‟ in Dhanukhai Gram Panchayat under Runi Saidpur Block in the district of Sitamarhi be appointed on the post of Panchayaqt Siksha Mitra. (ii)It may further be declared that the petitioner, if he is appointed, he may be paid his arrear salary and the current salary with interest on due amount. (iii)It may be declared that the petitioner, who is fulfilling all the criteria for appointment on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra, he should have been appointed as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra instead of Respondent no.8, who is having less marks than the petitioner. (iv)It may be declared that the appointment of Respondent No.8 is illegal and he is having less marks than the petitioner, hence his appointment on panchayat Shiksha Mitra may be declared illegal and hence it is fit to be quashed. (v)It may be declared that the appointment of Respondent no.8 is unconstitutional and contrary to law and also contrary to the guidelines given for the appointment of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra. (vi)It may be declared that the Respondent no.8 who has been appointed as Panchayat Siksha Mitra in the year 2003 but the petitioner, who is 2 having higher marks than Respondent no.8 has not been appointed and the service of Respondent no.8 has been extended for the year 2004, 2005, 2006 and thereafter made permanent, in that situation the petitioner should have been appointed in place of Respondent no.8.” while this Court must hold that the directions sought for selection and appointment of the petitioner on the post of Shiksha Mitra cannot be issued in view of abolition of the post of Shiksha Mitra w.e.f. 1.7.2006, but his grievances as with regard to selection and appointment of respondent no. 8 as Shiksha Mitra despite having lesser marks than him (petitioner), can still be made subject matter of a complaint before the District Teachers Appellate Authority. If the petitioner would file complaint before the concerned District Teachers Appellate Authority, the same will be examined and decided strictly in accordance with law but only after giving notice and/or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as also to respondent no. 8. With the aforesaid observation and direction this application is disposed of. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)