IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11237 of 2004 Nishant Mani, son of Nirbhay Kant Tripathi, village Sughar, PS Gopalpur, District W. Champaran – Petitioner. Vs. 1) The State of Bihar, 2) Sri Ram Jee Mahto, Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Southern Ghogha, Chanpatia, Dist. West Champaran. 3) Bikrama Prasad, Headmaster, Government Primary School, Mohachhi Nayan, Chanpatiya, Dist.West Champaran. 4) The Block Education Extension Officer,Chanpatia, Dist. West Champaran. 5) The President, Vidyalaya Siksha Samiti, Chanpatia, Dist.West Champaran. 6) The Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Southern Ghogha, Chanpatia, Dist.West Champaran. 7) Nikhil Kumar Dwivedi, Shiksha Mitra, Govt. Primary School, Mohachhi Nayan, Chanpatia, Dist. West Champaran – Respondents. 6 20.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, counsel for respondent no.7 and counsel appearing on behalf of the State. Petitioner was appointed as a Shiksha Mitra on 20th of June, 2003 on contractual basis for 11 months. The Mukhiya vide Annexure 6 dated 13.2.2004, directed the petitioner not to work any further on the post of Shiksha Mitra as his period for appointment had come to an end on 24.2.2004. Later vide Annexure 7, there was an amendment by which it has been explained by the Mukhiya that the petitioner’s period of service was to end on 15.3.2004 and not on 24.2.2004. The main grievance of the petitioner is with respect to the appointment of respondent no. 7 for the period 2004-05. Referring to Annexure ‘D’ to the counter affidavit, counsel for the petitioner points out that it is an admitted fact that the petitioner had got higher marks i.e. 72.80% whereas respondent no. 7 had got 66%. The reason disclosed in the proceedings for rejecting the candidature is that the Education Committee had made a complaint against the petitioner, therefore, it has been noted in the proceedings, that the performance of 2 the petitioner was not up to the mark and, therefore, he was not reappointed despite the fact that he had higher marks. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner never received any notice nor has any material has been placed on the record to indicate that the petitioner did not perform his duties in the manner expected of him. This court would have remitted the matter back for consideration of the District Magistrate with respect to the allegations against the petitioner, except for the hurdle that subsequently in the year 2005-06 when 11 months period expired, no steps were taken by the petitioner to re-apply for the post of Shiksha Mitra. By not taking appropriate steps at the appropriate time, the petitioner has lost the opportunity of being considered for appointment as a Shiksha Mitra for the year 2005-06 and getting the advantage of being absorbed as a Panchayat teacher under the relevant Rules. Counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, submits that there was no fresh advertisement for the period 2005-06.This aspect of the matter can only be decided and considered by the Appellate Tribunal since there are no pleadings in this regard before this court. The petitioner may move the Appellate Tribunal, if so advised. This writ petition is disposed of. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)