IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.147 of 2011 Sunish Kumar Roushan, son of Kapileshwar Rai, resident of village and P.O. Kalyanpur, P.S. Bidupur, District Vaishali at Hajipur---- petitioner Versus 1.The State of Bihar 2.The District Shikshak Niyojan Appealiya Pradhikar, Vaishali at Hajipur through its Member 3.The District Collector, Vaishali at Hajipur 4.The District Suerintendent of Education, Vaishali at Hajipur 5.The Sub-Divisional Education Officer, Hajipur, District Vaishali at Hajipur 6.The Area Education Officer, Hajipur, District Vaishali at Hajipur 7.The Block Education Extension Officer, Bidupur, District Vaishali at Hajipur 8.The Block Development Officer, Bidupur, District Vaishali at Hajipur 9.The Mukhiya Gram Panchayat, Chak Sikandar Kalyanpur (Bidupur) district Vaishali at Hajipur 10.The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Chak Sikandar Kalyanpur (Bidupur) District Vaishali at Hajipur 11.The Headmaster of Prathmik Vidyalaya, Kaila Chak, P.S. Bidupur, District Vaishali at Hajipur---------------------------------------respondents ----------- For the petitioner :Mr.Ras Bihari Thakur, Advocate For the State :Mr.Ravi Verma, AC to GP 12 ------ 2. 22.7.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner seeks quashing part of the order dated 21.7.2010 passed in Objection No. HC 36 of 2009 by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Vaishali at Hajipur by which the claim of the petitioner for being appointed on the post of Shiksha Mitra in continuation of the earlier appointment and joining has 2 been rejected and for payment of salary for the period he has worked as Shiksha Mitra. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the petitioner’s appointment as Shiksha Mitra by the Panchayat for the period of 11 months the petitioner joined on 22.3.2003. It is further submitted that although the petitioner’s contract was not extended after 11 months but he continued to regularly work in the school at least till 10.2.2007, as would be evident from the letter dated 10.2.2007 of the Headmaster of the school addressed to the Area Education Officer, Hajipur. It is thus submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Appellate Authority was wrong in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for being appointed as Shiksha Mitra and thereafter from 1.7.2006 as Panchayat Teacher. From a perusal of the impugned order dated 21.7.2010 of the Appellate Authority this Court finds that the authority has taken a correct approach in the matter. It is evident that the petitioner’s contract as Shiksha Mitra was not renewed after 22.2.2004 and thereafter the petitioner did not approach the superior authority in the matter. For the first time it appears that at the end of 2006 3 the petitioner again approached the authorities for being appointed as Panchayat Teacher. No reasonable explanation is to be found as to why the petitioner had remained silent for so long. It is evident that the petitioner had become active only on account of the fact that by the Bihar Panchayat Teacher(Appointment and Service Condition) Rules, 2006 contractual Shiksha Mitras were made regular as Panchayat Teachers from 1.7.2006. In the said circumstances, the finding of the Appellate Authority that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the matter of appointment as Shiksha Mitra/Panchayat Teacher appears to be correct. This Court does not find any ground for interfering with the order dated 21.7.2010 of the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority. The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) Spal/