IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3673 of 2008 PAMMI KUMARI, W/o Sri Navin Kumar Singh, daughter of Kailash Singh, Resident of village – Bara Harakh, P.O. + P.S. Pakridayal, District – East Champaran. …. Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Commissioner –cum- Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development, Govt. of Bihar. 3. The District Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari. 4. The District Superintendent of Education, East Champaran, Motihari. 5. The Block Development Officer, Pakaridayal Anchal, District – East Champaran. 6. Sri Ashok Singh, the then Mukhia, Panchayat Raj Pakaridayal Uttari, Anchal – Pakaridayal, District – East Champaran. 7. Sri Bishambhar Prasad, Panchayat Sevak of Panchayat Raj Pakaridayal Uttari, Block – Pakaridayal P.O. + P.S. Pakridayal, District – East Champaran. 8. Mukhia of Panchayat Raj Pakridayal Uttari Anchal – Pakridayal, District – East Champaran. …… Respondents. For the Petitioner : - Sri Shyam Kishore Das, Advocate For the Intervener : - Sri Ashok Kumar Chaudhary, Advocate Sri Shekhar Singh, Advocate For the State : - Sri A.K. Dwivedi, S.C. to G.P. 13. ----------- 02/ 01.12.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel appearing for the State. Intervenor Indu Devi has filed I.A. No. 5072 of 2008 for being impleaded as respondent. The Interlocutory application is allowed. She is impleaded as respondent. Petitioner Pammi Kumari has filed this application for a direction to the Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Raj, Pakridayal Uttari in the district of East Champaran, Motihari to appoint her on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra. Her - 2 - grievance is that though her name was first in the merit list, she was denied appointment on the ground that after her marriage she is not fulfilling the eligibility criteria mentioned under Rule 5(ka) of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra Agreement and Appointment (Guidelines). The eligibility criterion as mentioned for appointment on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra is that the applicant must be resident of same Gram Panchayat. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the ground on which the petitioner was denied appointment was a non- existing ground as on the date of filling her application on 30.9.2004 she was unmarried and her marriage was solemnized on 10.5.2005. The newly added respondent Indu Kumari in her counter affidavit has stated that the petitioner was married with a person of different panchayat on 16.2.2005 and appointment letters were issued in May, 2005, i.e., subsequent to the marriage of the writ petitioner. Since the petitioner did not fulfil the eligibility criteria on account of her marriage she was denied appointment. It is also submitted by the respondent that in any case the petitioner as - 3 - provided under the guidelines could have objected the appointment of respondent within 15 days of the issuance of the appointment letter, but no such objection was filed. After more than two years, petitioner for the first time raised objection. The time barred objection of the petitioner was considered by the authorities and a full fledged enquiry was conducted. It was found that on the date of appointment, on account of her marriage petitioner had become resident of another Gram Panchayat, as such she did not fulfil the eligibility criteria. She was denied appointment for a genuine and valid reason. I do not find any illegality in case the appointment was denied to the petitioner. On the date of her appointment she was no more a resident of that Panchayat, which is the first criteria for being appointed on the post of Panchayat Shikha Mitra. A proper enquiry was also conducted on the basis of objection raised by the petitioner. Now, post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra is not existing, in that view of the matter, no direction can be issued to the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra. Another reason for not allowing the prayer of the - 4 - petitioner is that after 1.7.2006 the newly added respondent Indu Kumari was absorbed as Panchayat teacher in pursuance of Rule 20 (ii) of the 2006 Rules. The petitioner had never been appointed and worked on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra. The benefit of absorption allowed to the newly added respondent, on account of her continuance on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra, cannot be allowed in favour of the petitioner. There is no merit in this application, as such it is dismissed. DKS/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)