IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10715 of 2006 ROHIT KUMAR, son of Sri Ram Ekbal Singh, resident of village + P.O. Jagnathpur, Via Sutihar, P.S. Bhaldi, District Saran … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Secretary, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 4. District Superintendent of Education, Saran, Chapra 5. Block Education Extension Officer, Parsa Block, Parsa, Saran 6. District Panchayat Raj Officer, Saran, Chapra 7. Panchayat Sebak Raj Pacrukhi Gram Panchayat, Parsa Block, Parsa, Saran … Respondents ----------- 2. 24.8.2010 Having heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State as also perusing the prayer in this writ application reading as follows: “This application is being filed against highly illegal, wrongful and malafide action of the respondents in particular respondent no.7 who for the purpose of personal gains and malice due to none payment of fulfillment of demand made by him by the petitioner had deliberately not sent a name of the petitioner who was selected for the post of Sickcha Mitra and was appointed vide letter dated 9.5.2005 and he is continuously working on the post as Sickcha Mitra as Primary School Jagnathpur under Parsa Block of 2 Saran district. But unfortunately his name has deliberately been not included in the list sent by respondent no.7 to the respondent DSE, Saran.” when it became clear that that the writ application no longer survives at least for grievance of the petitioner as against the post of Shiksha Mitra abolished w.e.f. 1.6.2006 counsel for the petitioner had sought to contend that as a matter of fact that after the petitioner was engaged as Shiksha Mitra on 9.5.2005 such appointment was never terminated and in fact upon completion of period of 11 months he was given another extension with effect from 9.4.2006 as stated in the certificate of the Headmaster of the school dated 5.7.2006, which would make the petitioner continuing in service as on 1.6.2006 and thus also automatically absorbed as Panchayat teacher w.e.f. 1.6.2006 in terms of 2006 Rules. In the opinion of this Court, the claim of the petitioner that he was given extension of further 11 months with effect from 9.4.2006 can be established only by a specific order followed by agreement in the 3 prescribed format as laid down in earlier Circular but in its absence, the certificate of the Headmaster can not be relied. Therefore, if the petitioner could have produced his order of extension of service beyond 9.4.2006 before this Court, he could have been deemed to have continued working on the post of Shiksha Mitra as on 1.6.2006 for becoming Panchayat Shikshak, but in absence thereof no such declaration can be made in his favour. In this regard reference made by the counsel for the respondents to paragraphs 4 and 7 of the counter affidavit reading as follows: “4. That with regard to statement made in paragraph no.1 of the writ application, it is stated that the petitioner was appointed as Shiksha Mitra in Gram Panchayat Raj Panchayakhi in Parsa Block and was posted in primary school Jagannathpur where the petitioner joined as Siksha Mitra on 10.5.2005. He worked there till 29.7.2006 and after that he left going to school. An enquiry was made by Block Education Extension Officer, Parsa who has reported vide letter no. 209 dated 4 29.12.2006 that the petitioner is not coming to school since 29.7.2006. Therefore, the allegation made is not true at all. 7. That the statement made in para 10 of writ petition is not true. It is stated that the petitioner joined in primary school Jagnnathpur on 10.5.2005 and worked in the same school till 29.7.2006. After 29.7.2006 he left the school and is absent without information. This is evident in the enquiry report of the Block Education Extension Officer, Parsa.” would in fact slightly improve the case of the petitioner, inasmuch as it is now being admitted that the petitioner was continued in service till 29.7.2006 whereas the benefit of conversion of the post of Shiksha Mitra was to be given with effect from 1.6.2006. Thus, if the petitioner can still satisfy the authorities by producing his order of extension as Shikshamitra beyond 9.4.2006 probably his case of automatic absorption on the post of Panchayat Shikshak could get support from 2006 Rules on proving that he was continuing on the post of Shiksha Mitra as on 31.5.2006. The issue as to whether the 5 petitioner left the services or kept on working on 29.7.2006 in such event would become an issue of enquiry because removal of the petitioner from the post of Panchayat Shikshak in case he had been absorbed was to be again governed by the specific provision under 2006 Rules. There was/is infact no concept of automatic removal of Panchayat Shikshak and a show cause notice was required to be given to him followed by an order of termination of his service. The counter affidavit of the Respondents however is completely silent in these crucial issues. In that view of the matter, this Court has little option but to remit the case of the petitioner back to the Collector of Saran District who now after making an enquiry from the relevant records would record his finding as with regard to claim of the petitioner of his continuation in services as Shikshamitra beyond 9.4.2006 on the basis of a valid order of extension issued in favour of the petitioner giving him further lease of life for 11 months on the post of Shiksha Mitra with effect from 6 9.4.2006. If by virtue of such extension the petitioner will be deemed to have become Panchayat Shikshak with effect from 1.6.2006 and yet his services could be found unsatisfactory on account of his remaining absent, the procedure envisaged for removal of Panchayat Shikshak will have to be gone into before removing the petitioner from the post of Panchayat Shikshak. All these aspects, therefore, need to be addressed by the Collector of the District and as the petitioner claimed to have appointed on the post of Shiksha Mitra, the decision in this regard must be taken by the Collector strictly in accordance with 2006 Rules within a period of six months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. Any adverse decision of the Collector of the district against the petitioner would be made subject matter of a complaint before the District Teachers Appellate Authority. Let it be however made clear that this Court has, however, not expressed any final opinion with regard to merits of the claim of the petitioner which has to be 7 adjudicated by the Collector of Saran District strictly in accordance with law. In order to expedite the matter it will be open for the petitioner to file his representation along with a copy of this order and his own evidence in form of the order of extension of his service as Shikshamitra beyond 9.4.2006. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/