IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11912 of 2006 Kanhaiya Sah, S/o Sri Thakur Sah, Resident of Village Charwan, P.C. Chainwa, P.S. Rasulpur under Block Ekma-2, District Chhapra. ---------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director, Primary and Adult Education Department, Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate cum Collector, Chhapra, Saran. 4. The District Education Superintendent, Chhapra, Saran. 5. The Block Education Officer, Ekma-2, Saran. 6. The Block Education Extension Officer, Ekma-2, Saran. 7. The District Education Project Cordinator, Ekma-2, Saran. 8. The Mukhia, Gram Panchayat Raj, Nawada, Under Block-Ekma-2, P.S. Rasulpur, District Chhapra. 9. The Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Nawada, Block Ekma-2, P.S. Rasulpur, District Charwan, Ekma-2, District Chhapra. 10. The Head Master, Primary School, Charwan, Ekma-2, District Chhapra. 11. Khurshid Alam @ Kurshid Ansari, S/o Late Ishrail Mian, Resident of Village Bal, Gram Panchayat Raj Nawada, P.S. Rasulpur, Block Ekma-2, District Chhapra. --------- Respondents ----------- 2 31.08.2010 Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State, this Court, with regard to the following prayer made in this writ application:- “1. That this writ application is being filed for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the appointment of Respondent No.11 namely Khurshid Alam S/o late Ishrail Mian being illegal, arbitrary, violative relevant guide line for appointment of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra now 2 Panchayat Shikshak and Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. And for issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/order/direction to commanding respondent’s to extend the appointment of the petitioner as Shiksha Mitra in continuation of his appointment vide memo No.4 dt. 10.3.2004 in terms of principles laid down vide Resolution no. 1458 dt. 11.8.2004 by respondent No.1.” would find it difficult now to direct either for extension of the services of the petitioner on the post of Shiksha Mitra or for his consequential absorption, inasmuch as, his last extension of a period of eleven months on the post of Shiksha Mitra was made on 10.3.2004, which came to an end on 10.2.2005. If, thereafter, the petitioner did not move this Court till the post of Panchayat Shikshamitra had remained in existence i.e. 30.6.2006 and had filed this writ application on 25.9.2006, this Court has no option but to hold that either the extension of the petitioner’s service on the post of Shiksha Mitra is not permissible or his being absorbed on the post of Panchayat 3 Shikshak is out of question, inasmuch as, only those Shiksha Mitra, who were continuing in service on 30.6.2006, were given the benefit of being absorbed on the post of Panchayat Shikshak with effect from 1.7.2006. The next part of the grievance of the petitioner as with regard to his disengagement on 10.2.2005 and being displaced by the respondent no.11 can however be still looked into by the District Teachers' Appellate Authority of the concerned district, which after giving notice and opportunity of personal hearing to both the petitioner and respondent no.11 must decide the issue on merit, as to whether the engagement of Respondent no. 11 on the post of Shiksha Mitra was valid in terms of the earlier Government policy and decisions. If in such exercise it is found that the appointment of the respondent no.11 on the post of Shiksha Mitra after displacing the petitioner with effect from 10.2.2005 onwards was illegal, the said Authority would cancel such appointment of the respondent no.11. The resultant vacancy on the post of Panchayat 4 Shikshak therefore, if caused by the cancellation the appointment of the respondent no.11, if need be, would be filled up by undergoing the procedure of the 2006 Rules meant for filling up the post of Panchayak Shikshak. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)