IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16822 of 2009 Smt. Mansha Devi, W/O Shri Nandjee Singh, R/O Gopinathpur, P.S. Itarhi, Distt. Buxar, Presently Posted As Panchayat Teacher In Govt. Basic School, Within Unwas, Panchayat, Unwas, Distt. Buxar. -------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Deptt., Bihar, Patna. 2. The District Magistrate, Buxar. 3. The District Superintendent of Education, Buxar. 4. The Block Education Extension Officer, Itarhi, Buxar. 5. The Incharge Head Master, Govt. Basic School, Unwas, Itarhi, Buxar. 6. Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Unwas, Itarhi, Buxar. 7. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Unwas, Itarhi, Distt. Buxar. --------- Respondents --------- 5 01.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner in this writ application has sought a direction for payment of her salary for the period 14.5.2005 onwards. According to the petitioner, she was appointed on 13.5.2005 as a Panchayat Shiksha Mitra even when she was only Matriculate though the Government resolution had prescribed the qualification of Intermediate to be the minimum qualification for the said post. The petitioner claims that she had worked pursuant to the aforesaid appointment made on 13.5.2005 and she has continued till date initially as a Panchayat Shiksha Mitra from 14.5.2005 to 30.6.2006 and as a 2 Panchayat Teacher from 1.7.2006. Counsel for the petitioner has asserted that once this fact of appointment of the petitioner is admitted and that her joining was also accepted by the Mukhia as well as the authorities of the school, she cannot be denied payment of salary for the work admittedly done by her. The respondents, however, by filing a counter affidavit, have explained that since the petitioner was not possessing the minimum requisite educational qualification, her appointment itself was void ab initio and would vest her no right either to continue in service or to claim payment of salary much less absorption on the post of Panchayat Teacher. In the rejoinder to the counter affidavit, the petitioner has annexed the certificate and mark-sheet of the Intermediate examination which would go to show that the petitioner had appeared in the Intermediate Examination, 2006 which was held in the month of March, 2006. The petitioner was, therefore on her own showing not qualified at the time of her appointment on 3 the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra in May 2005. The petitioner infact had subsequently appeared in the Intermediate Examination while allegedly continuing in service on or after 14.5.2005. It is thus a matter of both great shock and surprise that the person employed in Government service could also appear in any examination without obtaining permission from the controlling authority. Counsel for the State has rightly pointed out that it is the case of the petitioner that she had proceeded on leave on the ground of illness in the month of February and March 2006 when the Intermediate Examination had been held. All these aspects, therefore, would require a fact finding enquiry as to whether the petitioner was legally and factually appointed as a Panchayat Shiksha Mitra despite her not being possessing the minimum requisite educational qualification and as to whether such appointment had vested the petitioner with any right to claim payment of salary. The Mukhia of a Gram Panchayat infact cannot appoint someone contrary to the Government Resolution and/or appointment 4 rules. This Court, however, would not like to draw any adverse inference against the anyone at this stage specially when it is the case of the petitioner that she had also got absorbed on the post of Panchayat Shikshak on or after 1.7.2006 in terms of Rule 20(3) of the Bihar Teachers Appointment Rules, 2006. As a matter of fact, when the petitioner herself claims to be a Panchayat Teacher and governed by 2006 Rules, she ought to have, instead of filing this writ application on 2.12.2009, moved the District Teachers Appellate Authority for redressal of her grievance relating to payment of salary, which also is a service condition capable of being looked into and adjudicated by way of a complaint filed by the aggrieved persons before the District Teachers appellate Authority. In that view of the matter, while this Court would hold the present writ application to be misconceived and not maintainable, it would still give liberty to the petitioner to approach the District Teachers Appellate Authority for redressal of her grievance. If such a complaint is filed 5 by the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, the Authority shall decide the matter on merits after hearing all the parties. With the aforementioned observations and direction, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)