IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5862 of 2008 VEENA KUMARI w/o Uday Narain Singh, resident of village- Mirzapur Mahnath Patti, Gram Panchayat- Satghara, P. O. & P.S. Raj Nagar, District- Madhubani. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The District Magistrate, Madhubani. 5. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Madhubani. 6. The District Superintendent of Education, Madhubani. 7. The Block Development Officer, Raj Nagar, District- Madhubani. 8. The Block Education Extension Officer, Raj Nagar, District- Madhubani. 9. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Satghara, Block- Raj Nagar, District- Madhubani. 10.The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Satghara, Block- Raj Nagar, District- Madhubani. ----------- 7 11.4.2011 The petitioner challenges the order dated 10.11.2007 passed by the District Magistrate, Madhubani (Annexure 13 to the writ petition) whereby he has re-affirmed the earlier order pursuant to which the District Superintendent of Education had directed termination of petitioner’s services as Panchayat Teacher by order as contained in memo no. 3081, dated 8.1.2007 (Annexure 9 to the writ petition). The petitioner had earlier come to this Court challenging Annexure 9 and had directed to move before the Collector, the order as contained in Annexure 13 is upon such a representation being filed. The short submission on behalf of the petitioner is that neither the Collector nor the District Superintendent of Education had any authority or the jurisdiction to cancel the appointment of the petitioner initially as Shiksha Mitra and then 2 absorbed as Panchayat Teacher. Counter affidavit and rejoinder having been filed, the writ application has been heard for disposal at this stage itself. On behalf of the petitioner it is submitted that so far as the petitioner is concerned, one Umeshwar Narain was selected as Shiksha Mitra in respect of Gram Panchayat Satghara , Block- Rajnagar, District-Madhubani after his two initial extensions there was no extension granted by him for the third time and vacancy announced by the Panchayat. In response to the said, the petitioner applied and after due selection process, the petitioner was selected and appointed as Shiksha Mitra by appointment letter dated 25.6.2005 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition). This was proceeded by advertisement and merit lists prepared, which are Annexures 3 and 4 respectively. The petitioner joined Primary School, Station Road, Satghara on 4.7.2005 and has been working as such till the Bihar Primary Panchayat Teacher (Appointment and Service Condition) Rules, 2006 came into being. By virtue of Rule 20 thereof, all working Shiksha Mitras were automatically absorbed as Primary Panchayat Teacher. It is after the said absorption, the petitioner has now been dismissed by the order of the Collector and the District Superintendent of Education. It is submitted that the Collector had no jurisdiction in the matter. In terms of the notification for appointment of Shiksha Mitra as well as Primary Panchayat Teacher, it is the Block Development Officer, who was given authority to adjudicate in such matters. 3 In the counter affidavit, two grounds are taken, firstly it is submitted that the vacancy had to be notified by the District Superintendent of Education and thereafter the Panchayat had to make appointment. In the present case, no such vacancy was notified by the District Superintendent of Education and as such the selection and appointment of the petitioner was invalid and secondly, it was submitted that even though the petitioner was initially appointed as Shiksha Mitra, his appointment was not extended into the period when 2006 Rules came into being and as such he could not have been absorbed as Panchayat Teacher and therefore the District Magistrate was within his jurisdiction to interfere and set aside the petitioner’s selection and appointment . Having considered the matter, the writ application is being disposed of at this stage itself. In my view, having considered the facts, the writ petition must succeed. To the query that there was a vacancy, which needed to be filled up by the Panchayat, the State counsel fairly concedes. Thus remain only a technical objection that the District Superintendent of Education not having notified the vacancy, the Panchayat could not take steps to fill up the post. Education now at Panchayat level is the responsibility of the Panchayat. Panchayat having came to know of the vacancy had duly advertised, selected and appointed , all of which was within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat. Thus holding on this 4 technicality of notification not having been issued by the District Superintendent of Education it cannot be held that the appointment of the petitioner was illegal and invalid. The next contention is that the petitioner’s services were not extended. The answer to it is simple. When the petitioner’s services were to be extended, Panchayat Elections had been announced and, in view of Code of Conduct, no such order could be passed. The Government itself clarified this position in respect of Shiksha Mitras and clarified that such Shiksha Mitras, who were working and whose extension could not be granted, would be deemed to be continuing to work when 2006 Rules came into being and thus were entitled to be absorption in terms of Rule 20 thereof. This squarely answered the second objection by the State. Thus, I am left with no option but to set aside the impugned order, as contained in Annexures 9 and 13 to the writ petition and holds that the petitioner would be deemed to be validly selected and working as Panchayat Teacher. She would be immediately made to re-join as Panchayat Teacher by the concerned Mukhiya and would be paid due remuneration but for the period she has been out of job i.e. from the time she was relieved pursuant to cancellation of her appointment and to the time she is directed to join, she would be entitled to only 25% of the wages. It shall be the responsibility of the Mukhiya concerned to ensure rejoining the petitioner within one month from the date of production of a copy of this order before him. 5 With the aforesaid observations and directions the writ petition is disposed of. Singh ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)