IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7659 of 1997 SMT.LALITA DEVI, wife of Mantun Thakur, resident of village Tola Jagarnathpur (Mushahri), P.S. Kalyanpur, District Samastipur … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR thorugh the Secretary, Primary and Adult Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2. The Secretary, (Secondary, Primary & Adult Education), Human Resources Development Department, Patna, Bihar 3. The District Magistrate, Samastipur, District Samastipur 4. The Director, Adult and Non-formal Education, New Secretariat, Patna, Bihar 5. The District Education Officer (Adult & Non- formal Education Department) District Samastipur 6. The Project Officer, Bibhutipur Block, District Samastipur 7. Nirmala Devi wife of Rabindra Rai, resident of Milki, P.S. Kalyanpur, District Samastipur 8. Ram Kumar Bhagat son of Baldeo Bhagat, resident of village Kalyanpur Ganj, P.s. Kalyanpur, District Samastipur … Respondents ----------- 7. 15.7.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows: “A) That the respondents be directed to continued the petitioners, who were selected and appointed by the valid constituted village committee as special instructions (one male and one female) from the same tola, for teaching under Non-formal education at the Centre established in the tola. B) The respondents be further 2 directed to pay the allowances as prescribed in the bye-laws of non- formal Education and be further directed the respondent authorities to send the petitioners for training as prescribed in non- formal education for knowing the duties towards fulfillments of aim and objects of this special programme of Education. C) The respondent authorities be further directed to consider the grievance of the petitioner, who validly selected and their names finally communicated to the authorities concerned by the Committee constituted and to cancel the illegal appointment of respondents no. 7 and 8 by respondent no.6, who is not empowered under the bye-laws of non-formal education.” As with regard to the aforementioned prayer counsel for the petitioner would submit that once the petitioner was selected and appointed in the Non-formal Education Scheme, her continuation should not have been disrupted especially when others are being retained. In the opinion of this Court a temporary scheme which either Adult or Non- 3 formal education was, could have given employment to a person only till continuance of the scheme. Such Non-formal Scheme has already been closed by the Government and therefore, the petitioner now cannot claim any right to continue in such disbanded scheme. If, however, any person of the said same scheme having lesser marks or being placed below to the petitioner in the merit list has been absorbed in any other government service with benefits of past service in non-formal education the petitioner may also represent her case for this limited relief and in that event the respondent would be under obligation to consider the grievance of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law following the ratio in the case of The Manager, Govt. Branch Press & anor.vs. D.B.Belliappa, reported in AIR 1979 SC 429. In order to expedite the matter the petitioner may file her representation before the competent authority, who would dispose of the representation within a period of six months of its receipt, 4 Surendra/ strictly in accordance with law. With the aforementioned observation, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.)