IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10911 of 2006 KUMARI ARCHANA, wife of Subhash Kumar, resident of Village Sahdullapur, P.S. Sahebgunj, District Muzaffarpur.. … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, through the Collector, Muzaffarpur, 2. Block Education Officer, Sahebganj, Muzaffarpur, 3. Mukhia, Gram Panchayat, Roopchhapra, Block Sahebgunj, District Muzaffarpur…… …Respondents. For the Petitioner : Mr. S. Parasmani, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanjeev Kr. Singh, AC to GP-XV ………….. 3 11.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner seeks direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Siksha Mitra for the Gram Panchayat, Roopchhapra Block Sahebgunj, Muzaffarpur on the vacant post. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that she was applicant for the post of Siksha Mitra in the aforesaid Panchayat in the year 2005, and was placed at 7th position in the merit list. However, four persons from the top were appointed. Chanda Kumari and Arnika Kumari were appointed upon the post reserved for the general category female candidates. Subsequently, the petitioner made a complaint regarding one Chanda Kumari that she had been 2 appointed on the aforesaid post on the basis of forged and fabricated document and upon her complaint, inquiry was conducted and her initial appointment had been declared cancelled on 17.08.2006. It has been submitted that due to cancellation of such appointment, the post became vacant and the petitioner should be appointed on the aforesaid post in her place as she was the next candidate available in the list of female belonging to the general category. However, it is contended that despite the representation having been filed, no decision has been taken by the authority concerned. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. However, learned counsel for the State submits that the appointment of Siksha Mitra was being made in accordance with the prevalent circulars etc. on the contract basis only for eleven months and subsequently Bihar Panchayat Parambhik Shikshak (Niyojan Avam Seva Sart) Niyamavali, 2006 came into existence with effect from 1.7.2006. Under Section 20 of such provisions, it has been clearly stipulated that all the Rules, Memorandum, Orders, Circulars, etc, which were existing prior to coming of the aforesaid rule with respect to the appointment/engagement of primary teacher/ physical Trained Teacher, Panchayat Siksha Mitra was automatically 3 stands obliterated. In above view of the matter, it has been urged that as there is no post of Siksha Mitra, the petitioner cannot be appointed on that post and, thus, upon the advertisement of the vacant post in the terms of the aforesaid rules, she may apply afresh for the same. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew attention of this Court towards Clause III of the Rule 20 which shows that a person already appointed as Panchayat Siksha Mitra under the earlier Rules from the orders etc. would be deemed to have been appointed as Panchayat Teacher under the Rules. However, in the opinion of this Court, this provision would not come to the help of the petitioner as she admittedly was not appointed as Siksha Mitra. It is true that appointment of Chanda Kumari as Siksha Mitra had been cancelled subsequently on the complaint of the petitioner but she cannot be deemed to have been appointed either from the date of initial appointment of the aforesaid Chanda Kumari or even on the date on which the decision has been taken for cancellation of Chanda Kumari appointment. After enforcement of the Rules now appointment on the post of Panchayat Teacher is to be made as per procedure laid down therein. 4 In above view of the matter, no positive direction for appointment of the petitioner in place of the aforesaid Chanda Kumari could be given. As a result, this writ application stands dismissed. Sanjay-II ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)