IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15090 of 2010 1. MINTU KUMARI D/O RAMDEO RAY R/O VILL.- NAREPUR, AYODHYATOL, P.S.- BACHHWARA, DISTT.- BEGUSARAI. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BEGUSARAI. 4. DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER CUM CHAIRMAN DISTRICT EDUCATION ESTABLISHMENT COMMITTEE, BEGUSARAI. 5. MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT - RAJ RANI-I CIRCLE BACHHWARA, DISTT.- BEGUSARAI. 6. MEMBER, ZILA SHIKSHAK NIYOJAN APPELLATE AUTHORITY, BEGUSARAI. 7. SEEMA KUMARI D/O AMARKANT RAY R/O VILL.- NAREPUR, P.S.- BACHHWARA, DISTT.- BEGUSARAI. ----------- 2. 27.04.2011 This writ application has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 31.3.2007 passed by the District Magistrate, Begusarai (Annexure-8) as well as the subsequent decision which has been rendered by the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority, Begusarai which is Annexure-12 and the order is dated 15.6.2010. The net effect of the two orders is that the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra was held to be illegal, invalid and contrary to the Rules and procedure laid down in this regard. The issue of appointment of the present petitioner has a history in the sense that the dispute 2 was raised by one Seema Kumari with regard to her appointment as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra which led to an enquiry into the appointment made for the various posts in the Panchayat concerned. Since the District Magistrate was the Appellate Authority, in terms of the earlier Rule, the matter was looked into by the District Magistrate and an order dated 31.03.2007 came to be passed by him holding that non-appointment or removal of Seema Kumari was legal and the appointment of the present petitioner against that vacancy was illegal because admittedly, Seema Kumari had much higher marks and weightage than the present petitioner. A direction was issued, therefore, to place Seema Kumari back on the post and to remove the present petitioner. However, this order of the District Magistrate was not adhered to both by the Mukhiya and Panchayat Secretary in one manner or the other and they allowed continuance of the petitioner on the post and payment of her salary was recommended from time to time to keep the issue alive over the years. The petitioner approached the High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 5461 of 2007, for a direction upon the respondents to make payment and also to set aside the order of the District Magistrate. The Court did not go 3 into the merits of the issue but disposed of the writ application by passing the order contained in Annexure-10, by giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority. It is in this background that the Appellate Authority went into the matter afresh and in terms of the direction of the High Court has rendered its opinion which is Annexure-12. Submission of the learned counsel is that the Appellate Authority has endorsed the orders passed by the District Magistrate and to that extent it would be said that the Appellate Authority did not apply itself to the issue before adjudicating the dispute. The Court has gone through the detailed order which has been passed in this regard. The question whether the District Magistrate had the power to pass such an order was also raised before the Appellate Authority on behalf of the petitioner and the Appellate Authority has categorically held that in terms of the earlier rules it was the District Magistrate who was the Appellate Authority and the Constitution of the Tribunal is a subsequent development in terms of 2006 rules. Therefore, the order of removal passed against the petitioner by the District Magistrate, cannot be said to be beyond jurisdiction. 4 So far as the merit of the order passed by the District Magistrate is concerned, the Appellate Authority has independently gone into the matter and it emerges from the records and the submissions that the petitioner has been accommodated on the post for which she was not entitled to. Case of Seema Kumari is another issue. It was sought to be made out that Seema Kumari did not fulfil the criteria and that is why petitioner was allowed to continue. These facts or submissions are nowhere in the findings given by either the District Magistrate or the Appellate Authority so far as merit of the claim of the petitioner is concerned. If the petitioner’s appointment was declared to be invalid way back in the year 2007 itself and that is what has also been found again on closer scrutiny by the Appellate Authority, then in my opinion this Court cannot grant any relief to the petitioner. This writ application has no merit and it is dismissed. Anand Kr ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)