IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10743 of 2009 SARITA KUMARI, W/o Shri Satendra Kumar, resident of village – Ajda P.S. Paliganj, District – Patna. ……… Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The District Magistrate/ Collector, Patna 3. The District Superintendent of Education, Patna 4. The Managing Director, District Industry Centre, Patna 5. The Block Development Officer, Paliganj, Patna 6. The Mukhiya, (Panchayat Raj Ajda) Sikaria, P.S. Paliganj, District – Patna. 7. The Head Master, Primary School, village – Ajda, P.S. Paliganj, District – Patna. 8. Ramashankar Kumar, S/o not known, (Siksha Mitra), Ajda Primary School, Village – Ajda, P.S.Paliganj, District – Patna. ……… Respondents. ----------- 02/ 08.10.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the State. Petitioner’s prayer is for quashing the order dated 20.6.2007 issued by the District Magistrate, Patna, whereby the petitioner’s appointment as Panchayat Siksha Mitra has been cancelled. Further prayer of the petitioner is for a direction to reinstate her on her respective post and to make payment of salary for the period she has already worked as Siksha Mitra. From perusal of the impugned order and the facts stated in the writ application, it transpires that in the year, 2005 one Pramod Paswan and Ramashankar Kumar, who were initially as Panchayat Siksha Mitra, were not given - 2 - second extension on the post, no reason was assigned and in their place petitioner Sarita Kumari and one Nitish Kumar were appointed. Pramod Paswan and Ramashankar Kumar challenged the cancellation of their appointment on the post of Panchayat Siksha Mitra before the District Magistrate, Patna, who was the competent authority for deciding the issue. The District Magistrate, Patna considered the matter in detail and recorded a finding that the appointment of Pramod Paswan and Ramashankar Kumar on the post of Panchayat Siksha Mitra has been cancelled without giving any notice to them and without giving any reason that how their services were not found to be satisfactory. Since the cancellation of their appointment was in violation of rule of natural justice, as such the order of cancellation of appointment of Pramod Paswan and Ramashankar Kumar was set aside and the petitioner’s appointment in place of Ramashankar Kumar was cancelled. Counsel for the petitioner submits that so far her appointment is concerned, before cancelling that, it was essential that she should have been given notice, but that was not done. - 3 - However, from the impugned order I find that both the parties were heard and after due consideration the order was passed. The order impugned was passed on 20.6.2007. For two years the petitioner remained silent and now she has come before this Court for quashing the order. So far allegation regarding violation of rule of natural justice is concerned, it is not available to the petitioner as her appointment itself was illegal .In case of cancellation of appointment of Panchayat Siksha Mitra, vacancy cannot be filled up from the earlier penal rather the vacancy has to be re-advertised and fresh selection has to be made, that was not done in the given circumstance. Petitioner’s claim that only after issuance of any notice to her, she could have been removed from the post of Panchyat Siksha Mitra, is not sustainable. Rightly or wrongly the petitioner has worked on the post from 01.07.2006 to 20.07.2009 and legally she is entitled for honorarium for this period. The respondents are directed to make payment of salary/honorarium for this period to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of production/communication of a copy of this order. - 4 - So far other relief prayed by the petitioner relating to quashing of the impugned order and reinstatement are concerned, I do not find any merit and the writ application is dismissed. DKS/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)