IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1716 of 2008 Suman Kumar, Son of Anirudh Prasad Yadav, Resident of village- Barui, P.O.-Khaira Doray, Police Station-Haveli Kharagpur, District- Munger. ….Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The District Magistrate, Munger. 3. The District Superintendent of Education, Munger. 4. The Block Development Officer, Haveli Kharagpur, Munger. 5. The Block Education Extension Officer, Haveli Kharagpur, (South) Munger. 6. The Panchayat Secretary, Barui Panchayat, Haveli Kharagpur, Munger. 7. The Mukhiya, Barui Panchayat, Haveli Kharagpur, Munger. 8. Sri Narendra Kumar Yadav, Son of not known, Ex-Mukhiya, Barui Panchayat, Haveli Kharagpur, Munger. 9. Bharat Kumar Yadav, Son of Narsingh Yadav, resident of village- Mahakota, P.S. Haveli Kharagpur, P.O.-Khaira Doray, District-Munger. ….Respondents ----------- 02. 06.03.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel appearing for the State. Counter-affidavit and reply to the counter-affidavit has been filed. This is not in dispute that the petitioner was engaged on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra for Barui Panchayat in Haveli Kharagpur Block, Munger against a sanctioned post. In terms of agreement, engagement was for eleven months starting from 06.06.2005 to 05.05.2006. The petitioner’s case is that after one month of the petitioner’s joining the Mukhiya of the concerned Panchayat appointed Bharat Kumar Yadav, (respondent no. 9) beyond the sanctioned post. Petitioner got his salary for entire eleven month - 2 - but Respondent No. 9 was not paid any salary, for the reason that his appointment was beyond the sanctioned strength and it was not legally approved. However on 02.06.2006 the Mukhiya held a meeting of Sukh-Suvidha Samiti and extended the period of engagement in favour of respondent no. 9, but no extention was allowed to the petitioner on some frivolous ground. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 02.06.2006 on the ground that Mukhiya as member of Sukh-Suvidha Committee could not have passed such order during the period Panchayat Election had been announced. Model Code of Conduct was in operation, Meeting of Sukh-Suvidha Committee could not have been held for passing such order. Petitioner has alleged that no such meeting was held and attended by any members. Their signatures shown on resolution is forged. In the counter-affidavit, filed on behalf of the Block Development Officer of the concerned block, it is stated that meeting was duly attended by members of Sukh-Suvidha Committee and they also signed the resolution. There is no statement in the counter-affidavit whether after notification of election and model code of conduct bieng in operation, it was proper to hold such meeting. The Mukhiya, who was going to contest election, should have presided over such meeting, when the govt. has issued direction to all - 3 - concerned not to pass any order relating to extention of period of Siksha Mitra, after elections have been notified. This question needs consideration. Concerned records are needed to be looked into. Members of the Sukh-Suvidha Committee who participated in the meeting dated 02.06.2006 are also required to be interrogated. All these things can not be done, sitting in the writ jurisdiction, as such, an enquiry by the competent authority under the Rules is desirable. Primary Panchayat Teachers (Appointment, Service Condition) Rules 2008 is in operation, under Rule 18 of 2008 Rules, the tribunal, constituted at district level is competent to enquire into such matter. Accordingly this matter is remitted to the district level committee constituted under 2008 Rules in the district of Munger. The petitioner is directed to file a representation, bringing all these facts before the Tribunal. Representation be filed along with this order. The tribunal is directed to conduct an inquiry, peruse concerned records, examine all concerned persons, specially whose signature is on resolution and supposed to have attended the meeting of Sukh-Suvidha Committee on 02.06.2006. The tribunal will also examine the propriety of the order on consideration of this fact that Model Code of Conduct was in operation. All concerned persons should be noticed giving - 4 - opportunity of hearing or filing show cause. Observing all directions of this Court the order be passed by the tribunal within four months of the filing of such representation by the petitioner. In case it is found that no such meeting was held, the tribunal will pass order in accordance with law, presuming that the petitioner continued on the post and entitled for all consequential benefits. It goes without saying that till the inquiry is conducted and final order passed, one post will be kept vacant for the petitioner, subject to the final order passed by the order of tribunal. Vikash/- (Mridula Mishra, J.)