IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2373 of 2007 MANI BHUSHAN SINGH, son of Sri Braj Nandan Singh, resident of village Parsarma, Block Gora Bauram, P.S. Jamalpur, District Darbhanga ... Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through its Commissioner cum Secretary, Secondary, Primary and Adult Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2. The Director, Bihar Shiksha Pariyojana Parishad, Govt. of Bihar, Shastrinagar, Patna 3. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 4. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Darbhanga 5. The District Magistrate, Darbhanga 6. The District Superintendent of Education cum District Programme Co-ordinator, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Darbhanga 7. The Block Development Officer cum Executive Officer of Panchayat Samiti, Block Gora Bauram, District Darbhanga 8. The Pramukh, Block Panchayat Samiti, Gora Bauram, Darbhanga 9. The Block Education Extension Officer, Gora Bauram, Darbhanga 10. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat, Nadai, Block Gora Bauram, P.S. Jamalpur, District Darbhanga 11. The Sukh Suvidha Committee through its President cum Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Nadai, Block Gora Bauram, P.S. Jamalpur, District Darbhanga ... Respondents ----------- 2. 29.9.2010 Having heard Mr. Prem Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the following relief: “Petitioner prays for issuance of appropriate writ/s, direction/s and order/s in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents concerned to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra in the 2 Gram Panchayat Nadai where all his 16 juniors/ inferior candidates have been considered and appointed as Shiksha Mitra on 26.5.2005.” as also taking into account that Mr. Jha has submitted that the petitioner’s case was wrongly ignored for engagement on the post of Shiksha Mitra, even when he had the highest marks amongst all the candidates this Court would find that today a direction cannot be issued for appointment of the petitioner on the post of Panchayat Shikshak as the said post stands abolished with effect from 1.7.2006 by the specific rules framed by the State Govt. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, that the post of Shiksha Mitra in fact was only converted into the post of Panchayat Shikshak is also not correct, inasmuch as not the only qualification for the post of Panchayat Shikshak but also a separate procedure of appointment has been provided in 2006 Rules which has got absolutely no resemblance to the earlier Government instructions for engagement on the post of Shiksha Mitra. Additionally this 3 Court would find that if working a Shiksha Mitra as on 30.6.2006 was allowed to become Panchayat Shikshak by way of absorption that will not make the post of Panchayat Shikshak and Shiksha Mitra the same post nor a direction can be issued by this Court for appointment of the petitioner on an abolished post of Shiksha Mitra for his being absorbed on the post of Panchayat Shikshak. The only other aspect that the selection of others, who have not been made party in this writ application, was vitiated on account of petitioner having higher marks and the same being not taken into account can be looked into only for the purposes of finding out in the illegality in the engagement of other persons and therefore, the petitioner will have liberty to move before the District Teachers Appellate Authority only for this relief and if the Authority on a complain filed by the petitioner would find that any person whose appointment is specifically assailed or challenged before it is going to be adversely affected, the said Authority shall 4 before taking appropriate decision would issue notice and/or afford opportunity of hearing to such persons. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/