IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 11420 of 2010 1. SAVITRI KUMARI D/O SHRI PARMESHWAR MANDAL, W/O SHRI DURGA PRASAD MANDAL R/O VILL.- DHUNHA, P.O. BABHNI, P.S. GAMHARIYA, DISTT.- MADHEPURA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT TEACHERS EMPLOYMENT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DISTT.- MADHEPURA 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MADHEPURA 5. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, MADHEPURA 6. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, BLOCK SINGHESHWAR, P.S. GAMHARIA, DISTT.- MADHEPURA 7. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, BLOCK SINGHESHWAR, P.S. GAMHARIA, DISTT.- MADHEPURA 8. THE MUKHIA GRAM PANCHAYAT MANPUR, BLOCK SINGHESHWAR, P.S. GAMHARIA, DISTT.- MADHEPURA 9. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT MANPUR, BLOCK- SINGHESHWAR, P.S.- GAMHARIYA, DISTT.- MADHEPURA 10. KALPANA SHARAN W/O SHRI BRAJNABH MANDAL VILL.- DHUNHA, P.O. BABHNI, P.S. GAMHARIYA, DISTT.- MADHEPURA 11. GAYITRI RANI W/O KISHOR KUMAR R/O VILL.- DHUNHA, P.O. BABHNI, P.S. GAMHARIYA, DISTT.- MADHEPURA ----------- 2 06.08.2010 The petitioner has challenged the order of the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Tribunal, Madhepura in Appeal Case No 68 of 2009 being order dated 03.05.2010. By the aforesaid impugned appellate order, the appellate Tribunal has held that the petitioner was wrongly recruited as Shiksha Mitra in the year 2005 and, as such, has set aside the appointment of petitioner. This appeal was filed by one Kalpana Sharan. The Tribunal has though set aside the appointment of petitioner but, in view of circular issued by Human Resources Department, granted no relief to the applicant Kalpana Sharan. Petitioner’s short challenge to the order of the Tribunal is that the Tribunal has held that recruitment of petitioner as a Shiksha Mitra in the year 2005 was wrong. This could not have been done under the Rules that were applicable at that time. There 2 was specific provision that objection, if any, had to be taken against the selection within 30 days and decided accordingly. Unfortunately, Kalpana Sharan did not take that objection before designated authority. Later when the Shiksha Mitras, who were found working, were absorbed as Panchayat Teachers on permanent basis, at that time also, she did not raise any dispute before the Block Development Officer who was the designated authority in terms of Rule 18 of the 2006 Rules. Now for the first time in the year 2009, she is raising this dispute before the Tribunal. In my view, by now, by a series of judgment of this Court including the case of Alok Kumar and others –Versus- State of Bihar and others since reported in 2009 (2) PLJR 929, the Tribunal was not competent to entertain the dispute. The Tribunal has been constituted to look into the appointment and problems of Panchayat Teachers. The Tribunal itself being constituted under the 2006 Rules, it cannot go into the question of validity of appointment of Shiksha Mitras who all were appointed prior to this. In that view of the matter, I have no option but to allow this writ application. Order dated 03.05.2010 of the Tribunal in respect of the petitioner passed in Appeal Case No 68 of 2009 is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. It will be deemed that the petitioner has been carrying on service as a Panchayat Teacher continuously. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)