IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3274 of 2007 SONI KUMARI & ANR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 02.07.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners question their exclusion from appointment on the post of Panchayat Shikshak commenced prior to 1.7.2006 when new Rules called as Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 came into force. Learned counsel fairly submits that one of the five persons appointed prior to coming into force of the new Rules was found to be illegally appointed and has been terminated. He, therefore, seeks relief for mandamus to consider the case of the petitioners on the available vacancy. In view of the statutory Rules having come into force, this Court finds it difficult now after 1.7.2006 to give a direction for consideration of the case of the petitioners under the old Rules and procedures. If the petitioners apply in response to any fresh advertisement, the Respondents shall naturally be obliged to consider their case in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioners next seeks leave to pursue the remedy before the statutory authority under Rule 18 of the Rules with regard to the other surviving four appointments. The question of validity of their initial appointment in pursuance of which they acquired the status of permanency as Panchayat Shikshak under Rule 20 is entirely different matter. - 2 - Though this Court declined to grant any positive relief to the petitioners and the writ application is dismissed to that extent, nonetheless the relief of seeking their remedy under Rule 18 is upheld by the Court. If the petitioners file a representation before the statutory authority with regard to four other illegal appointments prior to coming into force of the new Rules, the Respondent-authority shall be required to consider the same and decide in accordance with law expeditiously after hearing all concerned. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)