IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4398 of 2010 1. Talib Momin S/O Late Abdul Gaffur R/O Vill.- Narauchh Dham, P.S. Jale, Distt.- Darbhanga 2. Mokima Khatoon W/O Talib Momin R/O Vill.- Narauchh Dham, P.S. Jale, Distt.- Darbhanga Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Secretary, Deptt. Of Primary Education, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 2. The Secretary, Deptt. Of Primary Education, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. District Magistrate, Darbhanga 4. District Superintendent Of Education, Darbhanga 5. Block Education Extension Officer, Jale, Distt.- Darbhanga 6. Gram Panchayat Raj Rarhi Daksini, P.S. Jale Distt.- Darbhanga 7. Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Rarhi Daksini, P.S. Jale, Distt.- Darbhanga 8. District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority Through Its Member, Balbhandrapur, Laheriasarai, Darbhanga 9. Pawan Kumar S/O Late Ram Chandra Sahu R/O Vill.- Narauchh Dham, P.S. Jale, Distt.- Darbhanga ----------- 3 6.7.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Lokesh Kumar Singh, learned A.C. to S.C.26 for the State and Mr. Subodh Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the respondent No.9. The writ petition was filed for quashing the order contained in Memo No. 122 dated 15.02.2010 passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Balbhadrapur in the District of Darbhanga upholding the appointment of the respondent No.9 on the post of Shiksha Mitra on 03.06.2005 and his absorption as a Panchayat Shikshak. The respondent No.9 was appointed as 2 Shiksha Mitra on 03.06.2005 pursuant to a decision taken in the meeting of Sukh Subidha Committee held on 07.05.2005 and continued as such. After the enforcement of the Panchayat Shikshak Rules 2006, the petitioner was absorbed as a Panchayat Shikshak with effect from 01.07.2006. As there was some dispute as regarding his appointment, although the respondent No.9 was functioning on post of Panchayat Shikshak but his salary was not being paid and as a consequence whereof the respondent No.9 filed an application before the District Teacher’s Employment Appellate Authority,Laheriasarai, Darbhanga(hereinafter referred to as the “Authority”) giving rise to objection Case No. 703 of 2009. The respondent authority after calling for the records of the case and upon verification of the documents held that the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Shiksha Mitra on 03.06.2005 was correct and pursuant whereto he had given his joining on 02.07.2005. Upon being satisfied that the appointment of respondent No.9 was valid and 3 after observance lawful procedures, the appellate authority issued directions to the District Superintendent of Education for making payment of the salary of the respondent No.9 by the impugned order placed at Annexure-1 to the writ petition. It is this order of the respondent No.8 which has been put to challenge before this Court. The petitioners herein are Ex-Mukhia of the local Panchayat and who by the present writ petition again seek to raise the issue of illegality in the initial engagement of the petitioner as Shiksha Mitra. It is not in dispute that at no stage either during the engagement of the petitioner as a Panchayat Shiksha Mitra or since after his absorption as a Panchayat Shikshak did these petitioners ever raise any objection either before the Block Development Officer in terms of the earlier provisions or before the respondent Authority since after the invocation of the 2006 Rules. It is for the first time that the petitioners have approached this Court questioning the appointment of the petitioner as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra in the garb of 4 challenging the order passed by the respondent Authority which is merely regarding disbursement of salary to the petitioners. It is a different matter that the respondent authority while testing the claim of respondent No.9 of payment of salary also enquired into the initial appointment of the petitioner and upon verification of the documents his initial engagement as Panchayat Shikshak Mitra was found to be in accordance with law. It is also not in dispute that since after the enforcement of the 2006 Rules, any application questioning the appointment of respondent No.9 was made within 30 days by the petitioners. The petitioners having failed to raise any such dispute on any occasion before the statutory authorities as required under the rules, cannot be permitted to do so by maintaining the present writ petition. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed. Bibhash (Jyoti Saran, J.)