IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12707 of 2007 SHAILESH KUMAR GUPTA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 04.07.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner was an applicant for the post of Panchayat Shikshak. He applied on 5.5.2005. Final selections were held on 5.6.2005. Appointments were made on contractual basis for 11 months after which it may or may not have been renewed. Petitioner was not selected. He represented his grievance with regard to the same as late as on 8.5.2007 much after expiry of the contractual period of 11 months during which he may have had a cause of action. In the meantime, new statutory Rules called as Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’) came into force with effect from 1.7.2006. The writ application has been filed thereafter on 24.9.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit. From Annexure-7 to the same, it is submitted that on enquiry the District Magistrate has apparently found illegality in the selection of candidates and directed for appropriate action against the Mukhia and Panchayat Sachiv even while directing preparation of fresh merit list. In the writ application the petitioner has made a grievance against the selection of one Amresh Kumar Singh and Om Prakash Pandey, though their names do not find mention in the five names - 2 - mentioned in the enquiry report that their appointment has been made illegally, and neither have they been made party respondents. The question of any wrong allegedly committed to the petitioner and the cause of action, if any, surviving to him is an entirely different matter from any illegality that may have been committed in the selection process vis-à-vis others. On facts, this Court has noticed that the appointment was for 11 months. Assuming that the petitioner had been appointed, this contractual right would have come to an end on 5.5.2006. The petitioner did not pursue the matter much less filed any representation during this period when he had a cause of action. Thereafter, the renewal of the contract was an inchoate right at the discretion of the Respondent-State subject to fulfillment of conditions to its satisfaction. No cause of action can be maintained on such inchoate right. In the meantime, the new statutory Rules came into force with effect from 1.7.2006 providing conditions of eligibility and procedures for appointment. Any appointment thereafter has to be considered in accordance with the same. Rule 20(3) of the Rules only saves the appointment of such persons appointed earlier and working on the date that the Rule came into force. The case of the petitioner clearly does not fall thereunder and the writ petition has been instituted with a fond hope to somehow acquire the status of a Panchayat Shikshak with reference to the aforesaid Rules founded on inchoate right even which is not available to the petitioner, originally not selected. To that extent, this Court finds it difficult to grant any positive relief to the - 3 - petitioner. However, in view of the enquiry report of the illegalities in the process of selection, it is apparent that no benefit can flow under Rule 20(3) of the Rules to those who are appointed illegally. The orders have already been issued to proceed appropriately against those found guilty of the illegality. No orders of the Court are required on this aspect. The writ application is, therefore, dismissed. But the Respondents shall be obliged to proceed in law against those whose appointments have been found to be illegal. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)