IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10438 of 2010 1. JATAN KUMAR PASWAN, S/O SRI BILAT PASWAN, R/O VILLAGE AND P.O. SIBAISINGPUR, P.S. MOHIUDDINAGAR, DISTRICT- SAMASTIPUR-------------------PETITIONER Versus 1. THE DISTRICT OF BIHAR THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, PRIMARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 2. THE DIRECTOR PRIMARY EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA 3. THE COLLECTOR, SAMASTIPUR. 4. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, SAMASTIPUR. 5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, MOHIDINAGAR BLOCK, MOHIDINAGAR, DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR. 6. THE SIBAISINGHPUR GRAM PANCHAYAT THROUGH ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, MOHIDINAGAR BLOCK, DISTRICT- SAMASTIPUR. 7. THE MUKHIA SIBAISINGHPUR GRAM PANCHAYAT, MOHIDINAGAR, BLOCK, DISTRICT- SAMASTIPUR. 8. THE HEADMASTER GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL, BALTHARA SIAISINGHPUR GRAM PANCHAYAT, DISTRICT- SAMASTIPUR---------- --------------------------------PETITIONER ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Ram Suresh Roy, Sr. Advocate Mr. B.B. Singh, Advocate For the State: Mr. Deepak Kumar, AC to GP-3 ---------- 2 4.3.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The Block Development Officer, Mohidinagar Block in the district of Samastipur has passed the speaking order on an adjudication having been made by him on the direction of the High Court issued in CWJC No. 14657 of 2008. Issue was whether the petitioner had right of continuing as Shiksha Mitra and thereafter to be appointed as Panchayat teacher by virtue of deemed fiction created in 2006 Rules specially Rule 20(3). The finding is against the petitioner which emerges from the reading of the order dated 7.3.2010 which is part of annexure-5. The B.D.O. after hearing the parties and the concerned respondents has categorically recorded that the period of contract of petitioner as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra expired on 31.3.2006 and thereafter there was no extension granted in his - 2 - favour. However, there is material to show that the petitioner utilized the period post termination of the contract by offering himself as a candidate for Panchayat Samati Member and fought election unsuccessfully. This is the circumstance under which the B.D.O. held that the petitioner could not have been deemed to have continued on the post. His absorption as a Panchayat teacher is uncalled for. Learned Senior counsel representing the petitioner submits that because of the coming of code of conduct and non- extension of contract, the petitioner was prevented from working in the school. However since there was no legal bar or impediment in the way of petitioner to fight an election, he did fight the election, whatever be the result thereof. If annexure-3, the circular issued by the Human Resources Development Department is taken into consideration then the petitioner ought to get the benefit and should be treated to have continued in service because after the code of conduct ended, the petitioner deserved extension or renewal of contract. If above facts are taken into consideration then the petitioner did acquire a right of continuation as well as absorption on the post of Panchayat teacher. The circular contained in annexure-3 categorically talks about such teachers who were working as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra and whose contract could not be extended due to code of conduct being in place. The word used in circular is “Karyarat” meaning working. From reading of the order and the pleading it - 3 - does emerge that the contract of the petitioner expired on 31.3.2006 and thereafter he did choose to participate in the election by offering himself as a candidate on the post of Panchayat Samati Member. When he was fighting election obviously he was not functioning or working in the school in question and his non-functioning as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra is an admitted fact which emerges from the narration made in the order and is also not denied as such by the petitioner. Obviously annexure-3 was meant to protect such persons who were continuously carrying out their responsibility as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra after expiry of their contract and failure of the government to renew the same due to code of conduct being in place at the relevant time. Annexure-3 was issued to extend benefit to those persons who were working and were shouldering their responsibility as such and not for innovation of the kind which learned Senior counsel is trying to build up in favour of his client to beget the benefit of annexure-3 which was never meant for the petitioner. The petitioner could not be treated to be “Karyarat” in the school when he was busy in election campaign, which he was fighting. This Court does not find any legal infirmity in the findings or conclusion reached by the Block Development Officer and therefore no interference is warranted. No case is made out for any direction to place the petitioner back into service either as - 4 - Panchayat Shiksha Mitra, a post which does not exist any more or even by deeming fiction to be put back as Panchayat teacher in the Panchayat concerned. This writ application is dismissed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)