IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11963 of 2006 PINKI KUMARI, DAUGHTER OF SRI BIGHNESH THAKUR, AND WIFE OF AJIT KUMAR PATHAK, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHIRAUT(EAST), P.S. PUPARI, DISTRICT- SITAMARHI………………………………………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CUM COLLECTOR, SITAMARHI. 3. THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, SITAMARHI. 4. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PUPARI, DISTRICT- SITAMARHI. 5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, CHARAUT BLOCK, DISTRICT-SITAMARHI. 6. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, SITAMARHI. 7. THE HEADMASTER, GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL, HARIPUR, BLOCK CHARAUT, DISTRICT- SITAMARHI. 8. THE MUKHIA, GRAM PANCHAYAT CHARAUT (EAST), P.S. PURPRI, DISTRICT-SITAMARHI. 9. THE PANCHAYAT SEWAK, GRAM PANCHAYAT CHARAUT (EAST), P.S. PURPRI, DISTRICT-SITAMARHI. 10. NUTAN KUMARI, WIFE OF RAJEEV THAKUR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AMANPUR, P.S. PUPARI, DISTRICT-SITAMARHI. ………………………………………………….RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Petitioner : Dr. Amrendra Kumar & Mr. Ajay Kr. Pandey, Advocates. For the State : M/s. Subhash Prasad Singh, GA-VII & Dilip Kumar, AC to GA-VII. ---------- 2. 18.3.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the refusal of his extension at the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra and he also 2 seeks quashing of the order dated 30.11.2005 contained in Annexure-‘3’, whereby the Respondent No.10, has been granted engagement on contract basis for 11 months in her place. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as a Shiksha Mitra on 28.7.2003 purely on contractual basis for a period of 11 months and thereafter her services were again extended for further 11 months on 21.8.2004. However, after completion of the aforesaid period of contract of 11 months, the petitioner was not given extension and in her place, Respondent No.10 has been appointed. However, Learned counsel for the State submits that since in view of the fact the petitioner’s contract has already expired in the year 2005 and in the year 2006, the Bihar Panchayat Parambhik Shikshak (Niyojan Avam Seva Sart) Niyamavali, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’) has come into force with effect from 1.7.2006 and also in view of the provisions as contained in Rule 20 (i) of the Rules, whereby all the earlier Rules, Orders and Schedules regarding the appointment of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra stood obliterated after coming of new Rules and new post of Panchayat Teacher 3 has been created, who are to be appointed after following the procedure of the Selection laid down under the Rules, now it would not be possible to extend the petitioner’s contract at the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra as the said post itself is not available. Learned counsel for the State also submits that the petitioner’s appointed was purely on contract basis and his contract has not been renewed after expiry of the contract period. In above view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that in view of Rule 20 of the Rules, the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra was not in existence even on the date when the petitioner had preferred this writ application. The petitioner has preferred this application after more than one year of expiry of his contract and after coming of new Rules in existence whereunder the new post of Panchayat Teacher has been created, who are to be appointed after following the procedure of Selection laid down therein. The Respondent No.10, who was appointed as Shiksha Mitra after expiry of contract of the petitioner, must have been absorbed as Panchayat Teacher in terms of the Rules. Learned counsel could not point out any infirmity in the initial appointment of Respondent No.10 as Shiksha Mitra. Thus, this Court is 4 unable to give any direction to the authorities concerned to extend the period of contract of the petitioner and cancel the appointment of the Respondent No.10. As a result, this writ application stands dismissed. P.S. ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)