IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10370 of 2007 AJAY KUMAR & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- CWJC No.14127 of 2007 SHARDA KUWAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- CWJC No.14142 of 2007 AFSHANA KHATUN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- CWJC No.14203 of 2007 LALITA KUMARI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3. 10.07.2008 Learned Counsel for the petitioners is permitted to implead Block Development Officer as respondent no. 8 during course of the day. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioners claim to have been appointed as Shiksha Mitra in 2005 for a contract period of eleven months. This contract period on expiry was again extended for another period of eleven months. During the latter period Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Appointment and Service Condition ) Rules 2006 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules 2006’) came into force with effect from 1.7.2006. Rule 20(3) thereof conferred the status of permanency on such Shiksha Mitra who on the appointed date had been appointed and were working as such. The petitioners claim that their cases are covered thereunder. They are before this Court with their claim for salary being denied to them from May 2005 on the ground that their services had been terminated on 26.7.2005. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits from order dated 29.4.2006 by which their contractual appointment was renewed after the period of first eleven months to submit that if their appointment had in fact been terminated on 26.7.2005 there was no occasion for the respondents to renew their services by order dated 29.4.2006 recording the satisfactory performance of duties by the petitioners entitling them for renewal of the contract. On this basis learned Counsel sought to persuade this Court that the denial of salary prima facie was illegal. It is not possible to dispose of this writ application on merit without a counter affidavit in view of the recitals contained in the order dated 21.7.2007 on a surprise inspection report which seeks to raise disputed questions of fact but does not deal with the contentions of the petitioners from the order dated 29.4.2006. Learned Counsel for the State therefore has no objection if this writ application is disposed with liberty to the petitioner to file a representation under Rule 18 of the Rules 2006 before respondent no. 8, who is then directed to hear the parties and dispose of their representations with consequential orders, if any, in accordance with law within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order before him If the said respondent propose to pass an order adverse to the petitioners he shall be required to pass reasoned and speaking order. The writ applications stand disposed off. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)