IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.611 of 2011 In (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE 8358/2010) MOSTT.CHUNU KUMARI WIDOW OF LATE RANJEET SINGH R/O VILL SIRSI, P.O.SIRSI DIHRA, P.S.HARNAUT, DISTT-NALANDA .....Appellant Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION BIHAR, PATNA 4. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION NALANDA AT BIHAR SHARIF 5. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER HARNAUT, DISTT-NALANDA 6. HEADMASTER, MIDDLE SCHOOL SIRSI, DISTT-NALANDA 7. APPELLATE AUTHORITY, DISTRICT TEACHERS EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL NALANDA AT BIHAR SHARIF THROUGH PRESIDING OFFICER 8. JULI KUMARI W/O MANORANJAN KUMAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- SIRSI, P.S. HARNAUT, DISTRICT NALANDA .....Respondents ----------- For the Appellant: Mr. Pramod Kumar, advocate For the State: Mr. Shantanu Kumar, AC to AAG-6. For respondent No.8: Mr. Dhirendra Kumar, advocate ---------------------------------- 3 26-09-2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the respondent no.8. At the relevant time in the year 2005, the appellant’s service as Shiksha Mitra under a Panchayat came to an end because at that time required educational qualification was of Intermediate which the appellant did not possess. The appointment itself was contractual for a period of 11 months. According to appellant she acquired the Intermediate qualification from two institutions, one 2 from Delhi Board in the year 2005 and another from Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar in 2006. Learned Single Judge has found such a claim of acquiring of two Intermediate degrees from two different institutions quite doubtful. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the issue was different as raised before the appellate authority by the respondent no.8 and, hence, the writ court should not have rejected the writ petition on the ground of acquisition of two Intermediate degrees over a short period of time which made the sessions overlap. Be that as it may, the issue which respondent no.8 raised before the appellate authority was that inspite of relief given to such Panchayat Shiksha Mitra who soon acquired degree of Intermediate after removal, the appellant did not join the post in question for a long period. In fact, only in 2010 she along with some others preferred a writ petition before this court claiming honorarium and when the matter went before the appellate authority, respondent no.8 claimed a right to the post on account 3 of her continuous working since 2005. The appellate authority has held in favour of respondent no.8 that she was working from 2005 with proper qualification and from the findings of the appellate Tribunal it is evident that the appellant slept for a number of years over her right to approach the authorities for being taken back in service on account of acquisition of degree of Intermediate. Considering the contractual nature of the appointment of the appellant which ended in the year 2005 and the fact that respondent no.8 has been working since 2005 and also considering obvious delay on behalf of appellant in raising her claim, we find no good reasons to interfere in the matter. The appeal is dismissed. BKS/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Shivaji Pandey, J.)