IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5941 of 2010 1. RINKU KUMARI W/O SHRI AKHILESH KUMAR R/O HEMANCHAK, P.S.NAUBATPUR, DISTT-PATNA--------------PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPTT. GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE PATNA 4. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION PATNA 5. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER NAUBATPUR 6. MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ SABARCHAK, BLOCK NAUBATPUR, DISTT-PATNA 7. PANCHAYAT SACHIV, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ SBARCHAK, BLOCK NAUBATPUR, DISTT-PATNA 8. DISTRICT TEACHER EMPLOYMENT APPEALLATE TRIBUNAL PATNA THROUGH ITS MEMBER 9. MADHU KUMAR W/O MUKUL KUMAR R/O VILL AKBARPUR, P.O. SORAMPUR, P.S.NAUBATPUR, DISTT-PATNA-----RESPONDENTS ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Naresh Dikshit, Advocate Mr. A.K.Gautam, Advocate For the State: Mr. R.R. Sinha, G.P-19 ------------- 4 11.3.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Annexure-20 is the cause of action for filing the present writ application on behalf of the petitioner. This is an adjudication made by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority on the basis of earlier direction issued by the High Court in a writ filed by Madhu Kumari. The tribunal has held that the appointment of the petitioner after removal of Madhu Kumari on the direction of District Superintendent of Education, Patna was totally in the teeth of 2006 Rules relating to Bihar Panchayat Primary Teacher (Employment & Service Condition) Rule 2006 because after 1.7.2006 there is no occasion to appoint any person on the post Shiksha Mitra as the said post did not exist after coming of the new rule. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is - 2 - that the petitioner had been pursuing her matter for a long time before various authorities because in the initial exercise for appointment Madhu Kumari came to be appointed even when she did not have the requisite marks vis-à-vis the present petitioner. Admittedly the petitioner had a higher marks and she has right for appointment but these were manipulated in favour of Madhu kumari and this fact emerged from the enquiry at the behest of the District Magistrate and corroborated in the report given by then Block Development Officer which would be evident from perusal of annexure-7. Based on the report of the B.D.O. dated 23.12.2006 a direction was issued by the District Magistrate to the District Superintendent of Education and on whose behest the letter of appointment in favour of the petitioner came to be issued on 2.6.2007, annexure-15. But since this appointment came to be further challenged in a writ application which was disposed of on the direction upon the appellate authority to adjudicate the matter and the order impugned has come to be passed. A reading of the order specially paragraphs 6 to 8 would show that the tribunal has rightly interpreted the rule as it existed at the relevant time and the manner in which the petitioner came to be appointed at the behest of the authority who had no power to give such direction, coupled with that the accepted position in law on reading of the Rules is that after 1.7.2006 there was no post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra which could be filled up - 3 - in the manner in which the petitioner was appointed in terms of annexure-15. Even though the Court is of the opinion that the petitioner had made out a case for her inclusion initially on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra but the rule having gone a change after 2006, there was no occasion for the authority to appoint him on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra on 2.6.2007. The rational and reasonings given by the appellate authority are correct in law and therefore does not require interference whatever the prejudice the petitioner feels has been created against her. This writ application has no merit and it is dismissed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)