IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.273 of 2011 RANDHIR KUMAR, S/o Shri Sushil Kumar, Resident of Village-Nawgarh, P.O. -Asharhi . P.S.-Hilsa, District- Nalanda … Appellant/Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate, Nalanda 3. The District Superintendent of Education, Nalanda 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Hilsa, District-Nalanda 5. The Block Education Officer, Hilsa, District-Nalanda 6. The Block Development Officer, Hilsa, District- Nalanda 7. Anjani Kumar, Mukhiya of Anshari Gram Panchayat, Block-Hilsa, District-Nalanda 8. Kameshwar Prasad, Panchayat Sewak, Gram Panchayat, Anshari Block-Hilsa, District-Nalanda …. Respondents ----------- For the appellant :- Ms Sheela Sharma, Advocate Ms Madhvi, Advocate For the State :- A.C. to Ms. Namrata Mishra 3 05.04.2011 The present appeal has been filed against the Judgment and Order dated 13.12.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 16463 of 2010 wherein the petitioner-appellant herein had questioned his appointment/selection on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra which was cancelled by the District Magistrate, Nalanda (Respondent No.2) on the ground that his appointment on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra by the Mukhiya is contrary to the Rules. It is contended before the learned 2 Single Judge that the petitioner-appellant herein was appointed on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra on the basis of being successful in the competitive examination for the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra by the Mukhiya. The learned Single Judge has held that even though selection/appointment of a Panchayat Shiksha Mitra was to me made by holding competitive examination such policy cannot be termed as illegal, and the aforesaid observation has already been affirmed by this Court by order dated 22.01.2008 passed in C.W.J.C. No.3867 of 2007 following the decision dated 03.03.2008 in C.W.J.C. No. 12268 of 2008 and those orders have become final but however, after hearing the parties in the present writ petition, the learned Single Judge did not agree with the view taken in the earlier writ petition and set aside the appointment of the present appellant. Aggrieved by the same the present L.P.A. has been preferred. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that even though the 3 appellant was selected in pursuance to the competitive examination, but however taking note of the earlier orders passed in C.W.J.C. No.3867 of 2008 with C.W.J.C. No. 12268 of 2008 question of cancellation of appointment of the present appellant on the ground that he got successful in the competitive examination did not arise as it is not a case of fraud, mis-representation and malafide. But, however, the learned Single Judge has taken a different view other than the view taken by learned Single Judge in C.W. J.C. No. 12268 of 2008. It is further contended that cases of all the petitioners in C.W.J. C. No. 3867 of 2007 and C.W.J.C. No. 12268 of 2008 were similar. Learned counsel for the respondent/State has submitted that conducting of the competitive written examination cannot be made a criteria for appointment for the reason that they had to obey the orders of the learned Single Judge as it is a case of livelihood and in the absence of any mis-representation, fraud and malafide the appointments cannot be 4 treated as illegal merely because the appointments have been made in pursuance to the competitive examination. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.7 i.e. present Mukhia has contended that the appointment of the appellant has been made in violation of the policy decision of the State Government for recruitment of Panchayat Siksha Mitra as no procedure is prescribed for appointment of Panchayat Siksha Mitra on the basis of conducting of competitive examination. Under the above circumstances, the action of the then Mukhia is said to be bad and hence the appointment of the appellant is set aside. But taking note of the submission made before us as also after perusal of the records annexed to the L.P.A. i.e. Annexure -10, the order passed by learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 3867 of 2007 dated 22.01.2008 upholding the order dated 03.03.2008 passed in C.W.J.C No. 12268 of 2008, learned single Judge of this Court has observed that conducting of competitive examination cannot be held to be contrary to the policy of the State Government for 5 the reason that there is no material placed before this Court with regard to any fraud, misrepresentation or mala fide alleged in conducting such competitive examination. Under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the order of learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. It is also further observed that the State Government has already implemented the orders passed by learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No.3867 of 2007 and C.W. J.C. No. 12268 of 2008 by reinstating the petitioners, who are also similarly situated persons to that of the present appellant. Under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that appointment of the appellant cannot be treated to be canceled on the basis of conducting the written examination in the absence of any fraud, mis-representation or malafide. We do not find any error in the said procedure and there is no material placed before us by any of the parties which are contrary to the procedure. Under the above circumstances, we 6 are of the opinion that the action taken by the respondent upholding the competitive examination conducted by the then Mukhia cannot be treated as illegal. Accordingly, the order of termination of the appellant is set aside and the respondents are directed to reinstate the appellant-herein as expeditiously as possible. Having taken note of the fact that the Government has reenunciated the policy and as also particular rules in 2006 for recruitment of Shiksha Mitra and other teachers of the Panchayat, we are of the opinion that it would suffice, if the recruiting agency should follow the said Rules of the Government strictly. We also made it clear that this order shall not be treated as a precedent in the cases in future. With the above observation, the L.P.A. is allowed. Ashwini/- (T. Meena Kumari, J.) (Akhilesh Chandra, J.)