IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.645 of 2010 KUMARI SUNITA YADAV @ SUNITA YADAV D/O SRI BISHWANATH YADAV R/O VILL.- HIRAWANPUR, P.O. PAINAL, P.S. + BLOCK- BIHTA, DISTT.- PATNA. ---------Petitioner-Appellant. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE COLLECTOR, PATNA 5. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, PATNA 6. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, PATNA 7. THE B.D.O. BLOCK BIHTA, DISTT.- PATNA 8. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER BLOCK BIHTA, DISTT.- PATNA 9. THE PANCHAYAT SACHIV GRAM PANCHAYAT PURUSHOTTAMPUR, PAINATHI, BLOCK BIHTA, DISTT.- PATNA 10. THE MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT PURUSHOTTAMPUR BLOCK BIHTA, DISTT.- PATNA 11. THE PRINCIPAL, MADHYA VIDYALAYA PAINATHI BLOCK BIHTA, DISTT.- PATNA. --------Respondents-Respondents. For the Appellant: M/S Satyendra Kumar Singh, Hari Shankar Roy, Advocates. For the Respondent: Mr. Lalan Kumar, A.C. to G.P.22. ----------- 2 06-04-2010 I.A. No.3330 of 2010. Having heard counsel for the parties as also after taking into account the facts and circumstances mentioned in this application, the delay of 118 days in 2 filing of this appeal is hereby condoned. I.A. No.3330 of 2010 is allowed. L.P.A. No.645 of 2010. As we have condoned the delay in filing of the appeal, we are also inclined to dispose of this appeal on merits at the stage of admission itself. We have accordingly heard counsel for the parties at length. The appellant-writ petitioner is aggrieved by order of the learned Single Judge dated 27.10.2009 in C.W.J.C. No.11160 of 2009, wherein her prayer for extension of service on the post of Panchayat Siksha Mitra beyond 15.3.2004 has been rejected. It is not in doubt that the scheme of appointment on the post of Panchayat Siksha Mitra had itself envisaged engagement initially for a period of 11 months and its extension for a period of 11 months only on satisfactory completion of service. In the present case it is found that the appellant-writ petitioner was selected and appointed on the post of Panchayat Siksha Mitra on 15.3.2003, but her extension of service after completion of the period of 11 3 months was not allowed on the ground of her unsatisfactory working. As a matter of fact, in the meeting held on 15.3.2004 a decision was taken to re- advertise the post and the appellant-writ petitioner did not continue in service beyond the period of 11 months. Once this position becomes clear, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner that her refusal of extension in the meeting on 15.3.2004 ought to have been interfered by the learned Single Judge in a writ petition filed by her on 28.8.2009 is only to be noted for its being rejected. In the period of five years the whole scheme had changed and there is now no concept of Panchayat Siksha Mitra with periodical extension of 11 months and therefore this Court could not have revived the scheme for the appellant-writ petitioner. Additionally, this Court would also find that it was the deeming clause under which existing Panchayat Siksha Mitra continuing in service as on 1.6.2006 were to get benefit of becoming Panchayat Shikshak. Any Panchayat Siksha Mitra whose terms beyond 11 months was not extended and had not continued serving on the 4 post of Panchayat Siksha Mitra as on 1.6.2006, could not have claimed to become a Panchayat Teacher. This Court would also not find the submission of learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner to be worth acceptance that this Court ought to have held that the appellant-writ petitioner was entitled to continue on the post of Panchayat Siksha Mitra by getting extension of 11 months and thereafter also deemed to have become Panchayat Sikshak with effect from 1.6.2006. In the opinion of this Court, the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the claim of the writ petitioner, which as a matter of fact was not only belated but also in the teeth of the change of scheme in force w.e.f. 1.6.2006. That being so, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. There will be, however, no order as to costs. (Dipak Misra, C.J.) Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)