IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6272 of 2007 POONAM KUMARI @ POONAM MISHRA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 03.07.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that she was selected for the post of Panchayat Teacher when her name figured in the list of selected candidates drawn up on 25.5.2005. However, no work was allotted to her. That she had represented to the authorities on 11.10.2006 when the District Superintendent of Education, Muzaffarpur on 25.6.2007 opined that in view of her name being empanelled and the availability of vacancy, she having been denied appointment for no fault of her, can be considered. It is next contended that in similar circumstances joining of another candidate has been accepted on 25.6.2007. It is next submitted that in view of coming into force of the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006, the appointment of the petitioner is saved under Rule 20 and, therefore, she is entitled for appointment and allocation of work now. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner never came to be appointed and was only empanelled, which in any event creates no right in her. Having considered the submissions, this Court finds that the petitioner was merely empanelled. No appointment letter had been issued to her. The law stands settled that mere empanelment creates no - 2 - right. Moreover, if the case of the petitioner be accepted, she was empanelled on 25.5.2005. At that time the appointments were contractual in nature for 11 months which came to an end on 25.4.2006 under the then existing Rules. After the expiry of the period of 11 months, the right of continuance was inchoate and was dependent on several fulfillment of circumstances for awarding of fresh contract for 11 months. This Court is not persuaded that a cause of action shall lie on such an inchoate right which may or may not have fructified. The petitioner has only herself to blame having approached this Court on 14.5.2007 after the new statutory Rules governing qualifications and procedures for appointment have come into force. The petitioner cannot have the benefit of the saving clause of Rule 20 as she was admittedly not working on 1.7.2006 as a Shiksha Mitra to have acquired the status of a Panchayat Shikshak. This Court finds it difficult to grant any relief to the petitioner. The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)