IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18887 of 2010 Ramu Das, son of Sri Triveni Das, resident of village + P.S. Vibhutipur, District Samastipur----------------------------------- Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Human Resource Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 2.The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna 3.The Superintendent of Education, Samastipur 4.The Block Development Officer, Bibhutipur, Samastipur 5.The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj East Bibhutipur, Samastipur 6.The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Bibhutipur, Samastipur---------------------------------------------------------Respondents ----------- For the petitioner :M/S Manish Kumar,Mrityunjay Kumar, Advocates. For the State : None ------ 2. 24.6.2011 I.A.No.4090 of 2011 The interlocutory application has been filed for adding one Shikandar Sah as party respondent No.7 to the writ petition and also for amending the prayer portion of the writ petition so as to impugn part of Memo No. 251 dated 4.7.2008 and also for challenging the appointment of the proposed respondent No.7 Shikandar Sah in place of the petitioner. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer for amendment is allowed. I.A.No. 4090 of 2011 is, accordingly, disposed of. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appears for the State. 2 The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 20.4.2010 passed by the District Teachers’ Employment Appellate Authority, Samastipur passed in Appeal No. 1153 of 2010 by which the claim of the petitioner for being appointed as a Panchayat Teacher has been rejected and also the order dated 23.8.2010 passed by the same authority by which he has rejected the application for review. Admitted facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Shiksha Mitra by the Gram Panchayat Bibhutipur East, Block Bibhutipur on 10.4.2003 and the services were again extended. However, his service was not extended further on 14.4.2005 as in the meantime the qualification for appointment of Shiksha Mitra has been raised from Matriculation to Intermediate pass. The petitioner at the relevant time was only Matriculate. Although the petitioner has produced a certificate granted by the District Superintendent of Education, Samastipur of having continued to work in the allotted school till 17.7.2006 but it is evident that on the non-extension of the service of the petitioner in the year 2005 one Sikandar Kumar Ranjan (Shikandar Sah) has been appointed as Shiksha Mitra in the year 2005 itself. The petitioner 3 thereafter did not raise any dispute before any authority in the said matter and for the first time in January, 2010 filed his application before the District Teachers’ Employment Appellate Authority, Samastipur. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to rely upon a decision of this Court dated 14.7.2009 passed in C.W.J.C.No. 3700 of 2009 (Indu Devi vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.). From the said decision it is evident that the services of the petitioner of that case have been terminated in the year 2009 and thereafter she approached this Court on the basis of various Circulars, etc. and the fact that the said petitioner did not have the Intermediate qualification in the year 2005 and the petitioner took up equivalent to Intermediate course in the sessions 2003-05 which could have been completed prior to 33 months time if the examination would have been held in time and the petitioner was not held responsible for the delay. Moreover, it appears from the Government Circular dated 21.4.2005 that special provisions have been made for female candidates with respect to requisite qualification of Shiksha Mitra and even subsequently they could have been appointed on the post of Shiksha Mitra even if they did not 4 have the Intermediate qualification, provided they acquired the same within three years. The said benefit was not available to the male teachers until the Government Circular dated 4.7.2008 was made retrospective. On a consideration of the facts of the present matter, this Court is of the view that the appellate authority has considered the matter in the proper light and has rightly dismissed the appeal of the petitioner on the ground that it has been filed after a delay of nearly five years. So far as the challenge to the Circular dated 4.7.2008 is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the executive authorities could not have issued any such circular with retrospective effect. This Court does not find any force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. The said circular does not take away any vested right of a person rather it confers a right which was not earlier existing. In the said circumstances, it was open to the executive authorities to give the circular retrospective effect. It is only vested rights which cannot be taken away by an executive order retrospectively. This Court is also of the view that the petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge the appointment of the 5 respondent No.7 at a belated stage after he has served for five years since the said appointment had taken place on 19.8.2005 and he had joined on 23.8.2005. In the result, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the District Teachers’ Employment Appellate authority and the writ application is, therefore, dismissed. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) Spal/