IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9307 of 2010 1. SANJEET PRASAD S/O PARNESHWAR PRASAD SINGH VILL.- BAKSHAMA, P.S. GORAUL, DISTT.- VAISHALI AT PRESENT AS SIKSHA MITRA IN HASANPUR GANGTI PRIMARY SCHOOL Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY PRIMARY AND ADULT EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIATE, PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, VAISHALI 5. THE SECRETARY, THE DISTRICT TEACHERS APPOINTMENT APPELLATE AUTHORITY, VAISHALI 6. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, VAISHALI 7. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, GORAUL, DISTT.- VAISHALI 8. THE MUKHIYA GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, BAKSHAMA, GORAUL BLOCK, VAISHALI null null 9. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, BAKSHAMA, BLOCK GORAUL, DISTT.- VAISHALI 10. RABINDRA KUMAR S/O HIRALAL RAI VILL.- BAKSHAMA VIA MAHUA, P.S. GORAUL, DISTT.- VAISHALI ----------- 2 8.7.2010 Petitioner impugned the order as passed by District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority , Vaishali, in case no. HC 60/2009 being order dated 30.4.2010. It appears that one Rabindra Kumar was selected and was working as Shiksha Mitra since 2003. Twice his appointment was renewed. Third renewal was not given on the ground that he had not acquired qualification of intermediate within thirty three months, as was required. Thus, in 2005 consequent to non renewal of the said Rabindra Kumar’s contractual engagement, there was a vacancy. Petitioner was then selected from the panel that was made in the 2 year 2003 by the Sukh Subidha Samiti of the Panchayat. He continued. In the meantime, the said Rabindra Kumar i.e. respondent no.10 moved this Court. It appears that his case was that he had since passed Sahitya Bhusan from Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar and as such he should be permitted to rejoin and continue. This Court directed him to make his grievance before the appellate tribunal. Accordingly the said appeal was registered . In the said appeal petitioner was made opposite party and was noticed and duly heard. The appellate tribunal even though noticed that the said Rabindra Kumar had passed and acquired qualification equivalent to intermediate on the ground that it was acquired beyond thirty three months, termination of his contract was not interfered with. Petitioner could not have been appointed in the year 2005 in the vacancy created by termination of the said Rabindra Kumar as government directive was that once appointment was made , petitioner could not continue and if subsequent vacancy occurred the requirement process has to be undertaken. Thus, the tribunal refused relief both the sides i.e. the petitioner and the said Rabidnra Kumar (respondent no.10 ).petitioner is aggrieved by the said order. He submits that if the termination of Rabindra Kumar was held to be valid then petitioner should have been permitted to continue and the tribunal could not have proceeded to nullify his appointment. Petitioner was wrongly appointed and asked this Court to permit him to continue. Courts are not meant 3 for sanctifying and continue illegal appointment. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is dismissed. singh ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)