IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4435 of 2009 MITHILESH YADAV, SON OF SRI AMRIT YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – CHHAPI, POST + P.S. SHERGHATI, DISTRICT – GAYA. ………… PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HRD, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 5. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GAYA. 6. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, GAYA, DISTRICT – GAYA. 7. THE BLOCK EDUCATIION EXTENSION OFFICER, SHERGHATI, DISTRICT – GAYA. 8. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SHERGHATI BLOCK, DISTRICT – GAYA. 9. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, CHANPI, BLOCK SHERGHATI, DISTRICT – GAYA. 10. THE MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ CHANPI, BLOCK SHERGHATI, DISTRICT – GAYA. …………… RESPONDENTS. ----------- 08/ 28.07.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the State. Petitioner has filed this application for quashing of the order contained in Memo No. 340 dated 24.02.2009, whereby District Magistrate, Gaya has held the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra for the period 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 as illegal. The District Magistrate, Gaya has directed to institute an FIR against the petitioner. Petitioner’s claim is that he was appointed as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra initially for 11 months on 30.01.2003. On completion of 11 months he was given extension vide letter No. 24 dated 29.3.2004 and another 2 extension was allowed on 25.6.2005. Petitioner’s claim is that on completing 33 months as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra he was absorbed on the post of Panchayat Teacher, as on 18.6.2006, he was still continuing on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra. Prayer of the petitioner is for a direction to the respondents for making payment of salary, which has not been paid to him for the period 29.3.2004 till the date he has been absorbed on the post of Panchayat Teacher. The petitioner has annexed several documents in support of his contention regarfding continuation on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra, on account of extensions given by the competent authority. He has also annexed the document issued by the Mukhiya, Headmaster of the School and Members of the Selection Committee in support of his claim regarding continuously working on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra right from 2003 to 2006. On the other hand, documents annexed by the petitioner have been denied in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State. These documents have been alleged to be forged and manufactured by the petitioner. There is complete denial regarding extension given to the 3 petitioner on 25.3.2004 and 25.6.2005. The claim of the petitioner regarding continuously working on the post of Panchayat Teacher has been denied in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State. There are several documents, which need consideration to examine the claim of the petitioner, as well as denial by the State. In order to examine the genuineness of documents a detailed enquiry is required; and it cannot be done by the Writ Court. The Writ Court cannot decide issues, which are completely based on facts. It is desirable that the petitioner should file an appeal before the District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal will call for the connected records, such as proceeding books of the Gram Panchayat, attendance register and other connected documents. The Appellate Tribunal will also issue notice to concerned Mukhiya, Panchayat Secretary as well as Headmaster of the School and after giving opportunity of hearing to them, will examine the genuineness of documents annexed by the petitioner as well as respondents, in order to pass an order, in accordance with law. 4 Accordingly, this application is being disposed of, giving liberty to the petitioner for filing an appeal before the Tribunal within four weeks from today. In case such an appeal is filed by the petitioner, the Appellate Tribunal will decide the appeal as observed in this order, giving proper opportunity to the petitioner and looking into the connected records, within three months from the date of filing of the appeal. DKS/ ( Mridula Mishra, J.)