IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7762 of 2008 Rupesh Kumar Sahani, son of Dinanath Sahani, resident of Bhopatpur, P.S. Kotawa, District- East Champaran. ……………. Petitioner Versus 1.The State Of Bihar 2.The Director, Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna 3.The Secretary, Primary and Adult Education, Bihar, Patna 4.The District Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari 5.The District Superintendent of Education, East Champaran, Motihari 6.The Block Education Extension Officer, Kotawa, East Champaran 7.The Panchayat Raj Officer, East Champaran, Motihari 8.The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, North Bhopatpur Block Kotwa, East Champaran 9.The Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, North Bhopatpur Block Kotwa, East Champaran 10.Priti Gupta, W/O Prem Chandra Prasad, resident of Bhopatpur, P.S.- Kotwa, District- East Champaran. …………. Respondents ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner : M/s Ajay Kumar Singh and Satish Kumar Singh, Adv. For the State : Mr.Kumar Pankaj, A.C. to S.C.7 For Respondent Nos.8 & 9 : Mr.Satish Kumar Sinha, Adv. ----------------------------------- 4. 09/08/2011 Case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Shiksha Mitra on 8.3.2003, vide Annexure-2. Later on, it is contended that, his engagement was further extended for 11 months by order dated 20.3.2004, vide Annexure-3. As it appears from Annexure-7, the proceedings of the Sukh Subidha Committee dated 3.5.2005, his engagement thereafter was not renewed on account of the fact that he was having Matriculation 2 qualification only. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was in the letter of the Department dated 21.4.2005, as contained in Annexure-5, by which it was clarified that engagement of such Shiksha Mitras, who were having only Matriculation qualification, should not be renewed. This clarification was issued by the Department on 21.4.2005 and Sukh Subidha Committee met on 3.5.2005 and resolved not to renew the engagement of the petitioner. He relies upon an order dated 14.7.2009 passed by this Court in C.W.J.C.No.3700 of 2009, which has been passed in the light of judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A.No.940 of 2007. The said order itself shows that services of the petitioner of that writ application was terminated with retrospective effect by the Block Education Extension Officer by order passed on 11.2.2009, on the ground that she did not obtain Certificate of Intermediate within 33 months of her initial engagement as required by Government Circular No.2517 dated 3 4.7.2008. This Court found that the Division Bench had already held that if the incumbents have passed Intermediate Examination within 33 months even with less than 45% marks, it was not legal for the respondents to cancel their engagement with retrospective effect. This Court found that the Government Circular laying down minimum qualification for appointment of Shiksha Mitra as Intermediate with 45% marks had been issued on 11.8.2004, which was later on relaxed by the said Circular dated 4.7.2008 by allowing the candidates to acquire qualification of Intermediate within 33 months. Hence, the candidates who acquired qualification of Intermediate within 33 months after relaxation were entitled to continue in service and the respondents could not terminate their services on the ground that they did not had Intermediate qualification at the time of their initial engagement. Apparently, case of the petitioner is different on facts and hence the law laid down by the Division Bench does not apply in his case. Government letter dated 21.4.2005 4 clearly laid down that the engagement of those Shiksha Mitras who did not had Intermediate qualification was not to be renewed. In the light of that Government decision, Sukh Subidha Committee in its meeting dated 3.5.2005 had decided not to renew the engagement of the petitioner. At that point of time, no relaxation was provided by the Government which could come to the aid of the petitioner. Now, on the basis of Circular of the Government issued in 2008, petitioner cannot claim that his engagement as Shiksha Mitra should be considered as renewed with effect from 3.5.2005 itself so as to allow him benefits of continuity thereafter. This may also be noticed that even if petitioner’s term would have been renewed on 3.5.3005, this would have been his third term of engagement of 11 months which would have expired on 3.4.2006. Under the Guidelines, no person was entitled to be engaged as Shiksha Mitra for more than three terms. Hence, in any case, petitioner’s right to be engaged for three terms would have got exhausted on 3.4.2006. New Rules came into effect from 1.7.2006, 5 according to which only those Shiksha Mitras were absorbed as regular Panchayat Teacher who were continuing as such as on 30.6.2006. Even if claim of the petitioner is accepted, he could not continue as Shiksha Mitra after 3.4.2006 and therefore, he could not be treated as Panchayat Teacher on 1.7.2006 so as to get the benefit of continuity of service and benefits of subsequent circular of the Government dated 4.7.2008 which relaxed the conditions. Representations of the petitioner enclosed with the writ application are all of 2007 and not before, i.e. much after the new Rules came into force and therefore do not lend any strength to the writ application. In the circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in this writ application. The same is accordingly dismissed. Pradeep/ ( J. N. Singh,J.)