IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4386 of 2010 1. ARBIND KUMAR S/O MUSAFIR MAHTO R/O VILL.- KOPIN P.S. SITAMARHI, DISTT.- NAWADA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NAWADA 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, NAWADA 4. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, MESKAUR, DISTT.- NAWADA 5. THE MUKHIYA, PANCHAYAT AKRI, P.S. MESKAUR, DISTT.- NAWADA 6. THE PRINCIPAL, PRIMARY SCHOOL KOPIN, PANCHAYAT- AKRI, P.S.- MESKAUR, DISTT.- NAWADA 7. UDAY KUMAR S/O JANKI PRASAD R/O VILL.- KOPIN, P.S. SITAMARHI, DISTT.- NAWADA ----------- For the petitioner : Mr.Pramod Kr. Verma For the respondents : AAG-9 2 19.11.2010 Petitioner states that in the year 2003 he was selected as Shiksha Mitra in relation to Gopin Gram Panchayat in the district of Nawadah. The appointment was for eleven months. When the matter of extension came up, he again applied for extension and was selected and as such it was duly notified on 27.1.2004 by the then Mukhiya, Janki Prasad. When he went to join the school concerned, obstructions were created. He learnt that though for earlier period he has received some payments, for the first time, cheques have already been issued in his name but the son (Uday Kumar) of the Mukhiya , private respondent no.7, en-cashed the cheques after deleting the petitioner’s name. He then learnt that in his place the Mukhiya had appointed his own son- private respondent no.7. Petitioner represented the various authorities, who got enquired into the matter but nothing concrete came out. Ultimately, the petitioner moved the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority, who decided the matter after examining the - 2 - records and passed order holding that the petitioner was illegally and wrongly removed and Mukhiya’s son ( private -respondent no.7) illegally appointed in his place. The tribunal accordingly ordered for cancellation of appointment of respondent no7 but did not direct for petitioner’s appointment as it was of the opinion that the post of Shiksha Mitra had since been abolished and all Shiksha Mitras working had been absorbed as Panchayat Teachers. This could not be done in the case of the petitioner. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the tribunal . He states that tribunal’s own finding that the petitioner was wrongly and illegally removed, re-instatement with consequences had to follow. If that is not done then illegality committed against the petitioner would lead to be perpetuated. Petitioner has suffered illegal removal and this illegality must be rectified and the petitioner left remediless. Having considered the matter, in my view, the tribunal order to the extent that it does not order for re-instatement of petitioner cannot be sustained once the tribunal found that the petitioner was illegally and wrongly removed by the Mukhiya to adjust his son . While the tribunal rightly ordered dismissal of the son of the Mukhiya , it ought to have ordered for re-instatement of the petitioner with consequences that from the date petitioner joined he would join as Panchayat Teacher in place of the son of the Mukhiya, who was dismissed as a Panchayat Teacher having been absorbed from Shiksha Mitra. In view of the aforesaid I direct that the order of the tribunal - 3 - to the extent, as indicated above, is set aside and the petitioner is directed to be re-instated as a Panchayat Teacher in place of vacancy caused by removal of the Mukhiya’s son ( private respondent no.7). With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. singh (Navaniti Prasad Singh,J)