IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3570 of 2011 Arbind Kumar, son of Sri Ayodhya Prasad, resident of village Punakala, P.S. Paraiya, District Gaya-----------------------------------------------petitioner Versus 1.The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 2.The Director, Primary Education, Department of Human Resources Development, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 3.The Deputy Director, Primary Education, Department of Human Resources Development, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 4.The District Magistrate, Gaya 5.The District Superintendent of Education, Gaya 6.The Block Development Officer, Block Paraiya, District Gaya 7.The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Punakala, Block Paraiya, District Gaya 8.The Mukhia, Gram Panchayat Raj Punakala, Block Paraiya, District Gaya 9.Kanchan Kumar, son of Sri Chandra Mani Prasad, resident of village Punakala, P.S. Paraiya, District Gaya--------------------------------respondents ----------- For the petitioner :Mr.Aditya Narain Singh, Advocate For the State :Mr.Satyeshwar Prasad, AC to G.P.9 ----- 2. 21.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 16.1.2010 passed by the District Magistrate, Gaya by which the claim of the petitioner as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra in Middle School, Bokhari, Gram Panchayat Raj Punakala, Block Paraiya, District Gaya has been rejected. The further prayer of the petitioner is for payment of arrears of salary for the period from 29.8.2005 to 1.7.2006 during which he had worked on the said post. 2 The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing C.W.J.C.No.11661 of 2006 which was disposed of along with a large number of cases by order dated 18.5.2007 with a direction to the petitioners to file the representation before the District Magistrate, who was to consider and dispose of the same by passing reasoned order. The petitioner had applied for the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra in the concerned Gram Panchayat as a candidate belonging to the Extremely Backward Class category. He claims to have been selected according to the selection/merit list and entered into an agreement with the Mukhiya of the said Gram Panchayat for appointment as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra on consolidated pay of Rs.1500/- per month from 25.7.2005 to 25.7.2006. The petitioner claims to have joined as Shiksha Mitra on 29.8.2005 and continued till 1.7.2007. It is alleged by him that the new Mukhiya was elected after the election of 2006 and he prepared a separate merit list excluding the petitioner in order to accommodate his own men. Being aggrieved by the same the petitioner filed C.W.J.C.No.11661 of 2006 which was disposed of by the aforesaid order. Thereafter 3 the petitioner’s representation has been disposed of by the impugned order dated 16.1.2010 by the District Magistrate, Gaya rejecting his claim. In the order dated 16.1.2010 the District Magistrate has noted the fact that as many as 35 male candidates had applied in which the name of the petitioner was at Serial No.34 and the petitioner was appointed by the Mukhiya ignoring the proceedings of the Sukh Suvidha Samiti and the Panchayat Secretary. It was also found by the District Magistrate that another candidate Kanchan Kumar also belonging to the Extremely Backward Class like the petitioner was at Serial No.21 and the marks obtained by him in the Intermediate Examination was 58.8% which is more than the marks of 56.6% obtained by the petitioner. It was further found that the power vested in the Sukh Suvidha Samiti was wrongly exercised by the Mukhiya ignoring the Panchayat Secretary and decision was unilaterally taken by the Mukhiya. Accordingly the contract of the petitioner was found to be illegal. It was further found in terms of Paragraph-13 of the Government Resolution dated 11.8.2004 which was effective at the 4 relevant time that the petitioner was not entitled to any payment of honorarium for the said period. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the decision of the District Magistrate is not correct as, according to him, the respondent No.9 had not applied for the said post. It is further submitted that the then Mukhiya had acted in terms of the relevant Rules and appointed the petitioner for the period from 25.7.2005 to 25.7.2006 and thus in terms of the said contractual appointment the petitioner would become a Panchayat Teacher with effect from 1.7.2006 in terms of the provisions of Bihar Panchayat Primary Teacher (Appointment and Service Condition) Rules, 2006. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that the contractual appointment of the petitioner is not at all correct. As per the materials on the record the petitioner was practically at the bottom of the merit list being at Serial No.34 out of the 35 male candidates. It is also pointed out by him that candidate belonging to the same category was higher in the merit list and thus the petitioner could not have been appointed on the said post, apart from the fact that the entire appointment process was 5 illegal in view of the fact that the Mukhiya had unilaterally acted in the matter ignoring the proceedings of Sukh Suvidha Samiti and the Panchayat Secretary. On a consideration of the rival contentions, this Court does not find any force in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. It is evident from the guidelines laid down in the Resolution No. 1458 dated 11.8.2004 of the Government of Bihar in the Human Resources Development Department that the entire appointment process was to be carried out by the Sukh Suvidha Samiti of the Gram Panchayat and the function of the Panchayat Secretary was to receive the applications and the only function assigned to the Mukhiya was to verify the register of applications that was prepared. It is evident that the Mukhiya had taken upon himself the power of making appointment and issued appointment letter ignoring the Sukh Suvidha Samiti. Thus, the appointment of the petitioner by the Mukhiya on his own was patently illegal and in that view of the matter no relief can be granted to the petitioner. I further find in paragraph-13 of the aforesaid Resolution dated 11.8.2004 that it is clearly stated that if 6 the provisions of the Resolution are violated then the State Government/Panchayat would not be obliged to pay the grant to the Shiksha Mitra. The appointment of the petitioner having been held to be illegal as one of the candidates had obtained higher marks than him and the authority not being competent to make the appointment, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to the salary for the period during which he claims to have worked on the basis of such illegal appointment. The writ application being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) Spal/