IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1957 of 2007 Archana Bharti, Wife of Sri Santosh Singh, Resident of Village Kabaiya, P.O. Harda, P.S. K.Hat, District Purnea. -------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Collector, Purnea. 3. The District Superintendent of Education, Purnea. 4. The Block Education Extension Officer, Harda, P.O. Harda, District Purnia. 5. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Purnea. 6. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Kabaiya, Harda, P.O. Harda, District Purnea. 7. Kunti Kumari, W/o Sri Ghanshyam Chauhan, Resident of Village Bairbanna, P.O. Maranga, P.S. Maranga, Distt. Purnea. --------- Respondents ----------- 2 03.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State in respect of the following relief:- “1. That this writ application is being filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 17.1.2006 issued under the signature of respondent No.6 vide letter No.15 by which the “such Subidha Committee” (hereinafter referred to as the Committee) appointed the respondent No.7 on the post of Siksha Mitra illegally as the petitioner was a better candidate than respondent No.7 and further for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents authorities to re- consider the case of the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case as she 2 is the better candidate than respondent no.7 who is the wife of the Mukhiya himself who was member of the Select Committee which is in violation of the rules and regulations framed by the State Government in this regard and further for other legal and consequential benefits flowing from the said consideration.” While this Court is of the view that on account of abolition of the post of Shiksha Mitra with effect from 1.7.2006, this writ application filed on 14.2.2007 seeking direction for her appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra cannot be allowed, nonetheless, her another grievance with regard to the illegality adopted in the appointment of respondent no.7 should be looked into by the Collector of the district, who after issuing notice and affording opportunity of hearing to the respondent no.7, would pass appropriate order as with regard to the alleged illegality in her appointment. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of such claim of the petitioner with regard to the illegality in the appointment of the 3 respondent no.7 and the said issue will be decided by the Collector of the district in keeping with the circular/instruction of the Government in vogue at the time of her appointment. With the aforementioned observations, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)