IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12891 of 2007 Kumari Nilu Rani, wife of Shri Manoj Singh, resident of village Chaeriya, P.S. Mahashi, District East Champaran … Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari 3. The District Superintendent of Education (D.S.E.) East Champaran, Motihari 4. The Block Development Officer, Mehasti, East Champaran 5. The Block Education Extension Officer, Mehashi, East Champaran 6. The Gram Panchayat Raj Partapur through its Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Partapur, East Champaran, Motihari 7. Ajay Shukla, then Mukhiya son of Kapildeo Shukla, Gram Panchayat Raj, Partapur, East Champaran 8. The Secretary, Gram Panchayat Sewak, Gram Panchayat Raj Partapur, East Champaran, Motihari … Respondents ---------------------------------- 2. 11.11.2011 Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner claims payment of salary on the basis of Annexure 1, a letter of the Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Raj Parwapur addressed to the Block Education Extension Officer, Mehashi, East Champaran wherein three persons are said to have been selected for the post of Lok Shikshak under Shikshak Guarantee Yojana. The petitioner claims that on the basis of this communication she had joined and had worked for a period of one year i.e. October, 2003 to October, 2004 at Chauriya Centre. In the considered opinion of this Court Annexure 1 by itself cannot be the appointment letter/ order of engagement of the petitioner as a Lok Shikshak which is in fact only by way of an information given to the Block Education Extension Officer by the concerned Mukhiya. If, therefore, the petitioner can successfully demonstrate that pursuant to Annexure 1 an appointment letter was 2 issued to the petitioner and that she had worked on the post of Lok Shikshak for the period of October, 2003 to October, 2004, the respondents will consider such claim of the petitioner and would take a decision as with regard to payment of salary within a period of three months from the date of filing of a fresh representation by the petitioner. It is made clear that this Court has expressed no opinion on the merit of such claim of the petitioner and has left the matter to be decided by the competent authority. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/