IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Review No.124 of 2011 In Letters Patent Appeal No. 44 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11123 of 2010 With Interlocutory Application No. 2882 of 2011 In Civil Review No.124 of 2011. ====================================================== Vinay Kumar Vinay, son of Late Hardeo Prasad, R/o Village – Juafer, P.O. – Chakiya, P.S. – Bhagwanpur Hat, District - Siwan .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna, 2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Department, Bihar, Patna, 3. The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna, 4. The Commissioner, Saran Division at Chapra, Bihar, 5. The District Appellate Authority, (Selection of Teacher), Siwan, 6. The Collector, Siwan, Bihar, 7. The District Superintendent of Education, Siwan, 8. The Block Development Officer, Block - Bhagwanpur Hat, District – Siwan, 9. The Block Education Extension Officer, Block - Bhagwanpur Hat, District – Siwan, 10. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Mirjumla under Bhagwanpur Block, District – Siwan, 11. Panchayat Secretary, Mirjumla Panchayat in Bhagwanpur Block, District – Siwan, 12. Nand Lal Prasad, Son of Chhathu Prasad, R/o Village – Juafar, P.O. – Chakiya, P.S. – Bhagwanpur Gram Panchayat Raj, Mirjumla, District – Siwan, 13. Devendra Prasad Yadav, son of Gokhula Prasad Yadav, R/o Village – Juafer, P.O. Chakiya, P.S. – Bhagwanpur Hat, District – Siwan, 14. Savita Kumari, wife of Ajay Tiwary, R/o Village – Doharpur, P.O. – Panditpur, P.S. – Bhagwanpur Hat, District - Siwan .... .... Opposite Parties Patna High Court C. REV. No.124 of 2011 (6) dt.24-08-2011 2 / 4 2 ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shrinandan Prasad Sinha Mr. Kaushal Kumar Singh and Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Prahalad Kumar Bhagat, GP 13 & Mr. Binay Kumar, AC to GP 13. For the Opp. Party nos.12: Mr. Umesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate. For the Opp. Party nos.13 & 14: Mr. Gyan Prakash, Advocate. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 6 24-08-2011 This application for review of our order dated 23rd February 2011 made on Letters Patent Appeal no. 44 of 2011 is filed by the appellant. It is the grievance of the appellant that though the appellant has been non-suited for appointment as Panchayat Shikshak on the ground that the selection process which was initiated in the year 2005 was not completed by 1st July 2006; after 1st July 2006, in view of the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teachers Selection and Service Condition Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as `the 2006 Rules’), no further appointment of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra under the then prevailing scheme could be made. However, although the appellate authority below and the learned single Judge have recorded concurrent finding that the selection and appointment of the respondent no. 12 was equally bad, he continues to serve as Panchayat Shikshak. We have heard the learned Advocates extensively. Learned Advocate Mr. Umesh Kumar Mishra has appeared for the Patna High Court C. REV. No.124 of 2011 (6) dt.24-08-2011 3 / 4 3 respondent no. 12. He too has been heard extensively. It is not in dispute that for appointment of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra under Gram Panchayat Mirjumla selection process had commenced in the year 2005. The said selection process continued up to 2010. The dispute arising from the said selection and appointment culminated into above CWJC No. 11123 of 2010. The learned single Judge by his order dated 9th November 2010 allowed the writ petition and remitted the matter to the authority below. The learned single Judge observed that the order in favour of the respondent no. 12 also could not be sustained. In above Letters Patent Appeal No. 44 of 2011 preferred by one of the writ petitioners, by our order dated 23rd February 2011, we set aside the order of the learned single Judge insofar as the matter was remitted back to the appellate authority below. We considered the 2006 Rules and held, “Once it (the school) was upgraded as a Prakhand school, the Selection Committee constituted in consonance with Rule 9 of the Rules of 2006 alone could have made the selection and appointment of Prakhand teachers. The selection made by the Mukhia of the Gram Panchayat was ex facie without the authority of law, bad and illegal.” In view of the above observation, we held that the appointment of the writ petitioners made on 30th March 2010 was rightly set aside by the appellate authority below. It is not in dispute that the respondent no. 12 was appointed pursuant to the same selection process in the same upgraded school. If the Mukhia, Gram Panchyat Raj, Mirjumla had no authority to make selection and appointment of teachers in the Upgraded Middle School; the writ petitioners had no right to selection or appointment pursuant to the said selection process; on Patna High Court C. REV. No.124 of 2011 (6) dt.24-08-2011 4 / 4 4 the same principle, the respondent no. 12 also could not have been selected and appointed in the Upgraded Middle School by the Mukhia, Gram Panchayat Raj, Mirjumla. Besides, as recorded hereinabove, the appellate authority and the learned single Judge also held that the selection and appointment of the respondent no. 12 was also not justiciable. For the aforesaid reason, we hold that the appointment of the respondent no. 12, Nand Lal Prasad, as Panchayat Shikshak made by the Mukhia, Gram Panchayat Raj, Mirjumla pursuant to the process for selection and appointment of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra initiated in the year 2005 is bad and illegal and is void ab initio. The respondent authorities shall take the follow up action. The review application stands disposed of. Parties will bear their own cost. Dilip. (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Jyoti Saran, J)