IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15697 of 2009 1. RINKU KUMARI @ SMT.RINKU DEVI W/O SHRI MANOJ KUMAR SINGH, D/O SHRI KANHIYA SINGH, R/O VILL & POST OFFICE- BELAON, P.S- SIKRAUL, DISTT- BUXAR. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PATNA 2. THE SECRETARY, PANCHAYATI RAJ DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, BUXAR 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, BUXAR 5. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION SUPERINTENDENT, BUXAR 6. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, NAWANAGAR, DISTT- BUXAR 7. THE PANCHAYT SECRETARY, VILL-PANCHAYAT BELAON, BLOCK NAWANAGAR, DISTT- BUXAR 8. THE MUKHIYA, VILLAGE PANCHAYAT BELAON, BLOCK- BELAON, BLOCK NAWANAGAR, DISTT- BUXAR 9. THE SECRETARY, PRIMARY & ADULT EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Nil Kamal. For the State : Mr. Chandra Shekhar Singh, AC to GA-7. -------- 03 15.07.2010 The petitioner by this writ application challenges the order of the Collector, Buxar dated 27.07.2007 by which the Collector apparently finding that the recruitment of Shiksha Mitra as made in the year 2005 was irregular. Her appointment has been cancelled being order dated 27.07.2007 (Annexure-5). The issue is being pure question of law. Having heard the parties, with their consent, the writ application is being disposed of at this stage itself. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed in the year 2005 as a Shiksha Mitra. After her appointment twice the - 2 - engagement was extended as was required that Shiksha Mitra appointment was for 11 months on contract. On the last extension, State Government came up with the Bihar Primary Panchayat Teachers (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006, as provided under those Rules all Shiksha Mitra working on the date of issuance of the said notification were to be absorbed as Panchayat Teachers. Petitioner was, accordingly, absorbed as Panchayat Teacher. In the year 2007, by the impugned order without notice to the petitioner or without hearing the petitioner the Collector of the district assume jurisdiction and declared the appointment to be bad and cancelled the appointment of the petitioner as Shiksha Mitra, which had become a historical fact, as she was now absorbed as Panchayat Teacher. Two issues have been raised. Firstly, with reference to several judgments of this Court, it is submitted that the notification by which the post of Shiksha Mitra were created that itself provided that anyone taking any objection to the appointment must file objection before the designated authority within 30 days. Once a person became absorbed as Panchayat Teacher, having already served several terms as Shiksha Mitra, his appointment as Shiksha Mitra could not be questioned. Thus, in the year 2007, the Collector could not entertain any complain and/or decide the same in respect of petitioner’s appointment as Shiksha Mitra. As noted above, in the year 2005, petitioner’s appointment had been renewed twice. The second issue is more pertinent. That is with - 3 - regard to authority of the District Magistrate-cum-Collector to interfere in these appointments. As would be seen from the Rules referred to above, the appointment has to be made by the Panchayats in the manner prescribed. Thus, the District Magistrate-cum-Collector has no authority for appointment. As per the Rules aforesaid, all disputes in relation to appointment or service condition are to be dealt with by the District Panchayat Teachers Appointment Appellate Tribunal, as constituted under Rule-18 thereof. State Government has constituted the Tribunal under Notification No.3153 dated 25.08.2008 and has enumerated its functions and jurisdiction by Notification No.3716 dated 23.10.2008. Reading Rule 18 with the aforesaid two notifications, it is clear that all matters about irregularity or otherwise in appointment of Primary Teachers, the authority is conferred on the Tribunal alone. That being so, law implies and prohibits any other authority to exercise that power. The principle is well established. It flows from the “Latin Maxim” expression unius est exclusion alterius. This legal principle is evident from the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Hukam Chand Shyam Lal Vs. Union of India & Ors. since reported in AIR 1976 Supreme Court 789 and in particular paragraph-18, which is quoted hereunder:- “It is well settled that where a power is required to be exercised by a certain authority in a certain way, it should be exercised in that manner of not at all, and all other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden…….” - 4 - Thus, authority dealing with matters of appointment and service conditions being of a specified Tribunal, the Collector had no authority. Thus, on both the issues interference at this late stage and interference without authority, the impugned order of the Collector cannot be sustained and is quashed accordingly. It would be deemed that the petitioner would be reinstated in service forthwith and would be deemed to be in service, as if she had never been terminated, except for the purposes of monetary benefit for the said period. The writ application is, accordingly, allowed. Trivedi (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)