IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1587 of 2007 PRITI PRIYA, daughter of Subodh Kumar Singh,. Resident of village- Chainpur Nanhkar (Garwa), Post- Jahangirpur Sand Prakhand, Deshri, District- Vaishali. …. Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Commissioner, Tirhut Range, Muzaffarpur. 3. The District Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur. 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Vaishali at Hajipur. 5. The S.D.O., Mahua. 6. The Prakhand Shiksha Prasar Padadhikari, Prakhand Deshri, District- Vaishali. 7. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Rasulpur Habib, Anchal- Deshri, District- Vaishali. … Respondents. ----------- 2. 31.08.2010 Having heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State as also taking into account the following prayer of the petitioner in this writ application; “1. That this writ application is being filed for issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents for considering the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra in Rasulpur Habib Panchayat.” this Court would find that no direction can now be issued for appointing the petitioner on the post of Shiksha Mitra as the said post stands abolished w.e.f. 1.7.2006 whereas this writ application was filed on 6.2.2007. The remaining grievance of the petitioner that a 2 gross illegality was committed in selecting others while ignoring the case of the petitioner is an aspect which would affect the other persons who have not been made party to this writ application. Counsel for the petitioner however taking a clue from the counter affidavit would submit that such illegality in the selection/appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra is writ large on the face of record and therefore this Court should at least give liberty to the petitioner to approach the Collector in this matter so that the illegality in selection and appointment made on the post of Shiksha Mitra and their eventual conversion/absorption on the post of Panchayat Shikshak can still be interfered by the Collector. In the opinion of this Court, when the persons whose right is sought to be impaired at the instance of the petitioner are not parties to the proceeding, it would not be fair for this Court to give any final opinion on such claim of the petitioner but then if the petitioner would file a fresh representation to the Collector of the District, Vaishali at Hajipur, he would look into this part of the grievance of the petitioner even by referring to the stand taken by the State officials in their counter affidavit. If in course of 3 such exercise the Collector finds any one who was not entitled to/ eligible for being engaged on Shiksha Mitra was selected and appointed, he would issue notice to such person and after giving an opportunity of hearing to him/her he would take a final decision with regard to alleged illegality in such appointment of Shiksha Mitra and its eventual conversion/absorption on the post of Panchayat Shikshak. If it is found by the Collector that such appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra was illegal, he will have the power and jurisdiction to cancel it and upon cancelling such illegal appointment, the resultant vacancy on the post of Panchayat Shikshak will be filled up strictly in accordance with 2006 Rules. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this writ application is disposed of. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)