IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14223 of 2010 1. RANI KUMARI W/O SRI BALRAM SINGH R/O VILL.- TENGARAHA, P.S.- BAKHTIYARPUR, DISTT.- SAHARSA-----PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE COMMISSIONER, KOSHI DIVISION, SAHARSA 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SAHARSA 5. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, SAHARSA 6. THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE SIMRI BAKHTIYARPUR, DISTT.- SAHARSA 7. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SIMRI BAKHTIYARPUR, DISTT.- SAHARSA 8. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, SIMRI BAKHTIYARPUR, DISTT.- SAHARSA 9. THE MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ BHATOUNI P.S.- SIMRI BAKHTIYARPUR, DISTT.- SAHARSA 10. GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, BHATOUNI, P.S. SIMRI BAKTIYARPUR DISTT.- SAHARSA THROUGH ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY 11. THE DISTRICT TEACHER EMPLOYMENT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SAHARSA 12. MUNNI KUMARI W/O PAWAN KUMAR SINGH R/O VILL.- TEGRAHA, P.S.- SIMRI BAKHTIYARPUR, DISTT.- SAHARSA--RESPONDENTS ----------- 2 19.4.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The origin of the present dispute is the claim of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra on the basis of the application made by her on 3.5.2005. She submits that illegalities were committed by appointing persons not found eligible for appointment and she was kept out from the zone of consideration on a spurious ground that the letter communicated to her did not carry the correct memo number and date. After several rounds of litigation the matter was taken up by the appellate authority who has rejected the claim of the petitioner by order dated 28.4.2010. No interference is warranted with regard to the order passed by the appellate authority in the background that - 2 - even the adjudication was not required as such to be done by the appellate authority looking at the nature of relief which had been sought by the petitioner or the origin of the dispute which related to appointment of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra in the year 2005. After coming of 2006 Rules and abolition of the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra no appointment to such post can be made and if the petitioner was not appointed as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra she could not be considered for appointment, under the deeming provisions of 2006 Rules as Panchayat teacher as well. The issue raised by the petitioner is only academic now. No case for interference with the said order is made out in the above noted circumstance since after 1.7.2006 no post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra exists. This writ application is dismissed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)