Patna High Court
Sanyukta Devi vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 11 July, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.914 of 2018
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8448 of 2017
======================================================
Sanyukta Devi wife of Sri Vinay Kumar Mandal resident of Village-
Navkadih, P.S.- Laxmipur, District- Jamui.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Jamui.
4. The District Education Officer, Jamui.
5. The Block Education Extension Officer, Jamui.
6. The Mukhiya, Maraiya Panchayat, Jamui.
7. The Panchayat Secretary, Maraiya Panchayat, Jamui.
8. The Head Master, Primary School, Hiramba, P.S.- Laxmipur, District-
Jamui.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Bhola Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey, AAG-15
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 11-07-2023
1. The appellant is concerned with the judgment
which was dismissed on the basis of a Full Bench judgment.
2. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the
appellant specifically points out that the Full Bench decision
was not at all applicable.
3. We have considered the facts as coming out
from the writ petition. The appellant was appointed on contract
as a Shiksha Mitra in a panchayat school on 05.05.2003. Even
Patna High Court L.P.A No.914 of 2018 dt.11-07-2023
according to the appellant, it was a contractual appointment for
a period of 11 months. A leave application was submitted on
02.01.2004 which is produced as Annexure-2 in the writ
petition. Based on which the Headmaster is said to have
sanctioned the leave on 21.07.2004 produced as Annexure-3. In
fact, by the time, Annexure-3 was passed, the contractual
employment of the appellant had ceased.
4. We also see that the petitioner has in the writ
petition specifically contended that her contractual service was
entitled to be extended and that she should have been absorbed
in the regular service of Government Teachers since she had an
intermediate qualification. There is absolutely nothing produced
not even a Government order enabling such continuation in
contractual service or regularization.
5. Kalpana Rani Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., 2014
(2) PLJR 665 was a case in which the appellant raised a
complaint with regard to anomalies in the selection and
appointment of the writ petitioner to the post of Panchayat
Shiksha Mitra in 14.09.2006. The writ petitioner was appointed
in the year 2003 and having been continued in the said post was
also regularized on 1st of July, 2006. As per the Panchayat
Elementary Teacher (Employment And Service Conditions)
Patna High Court L.P.A No.914 of 2018 dt.11-07-2023
Rules, 2006, the executive instructions relating to engagement
to the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra were abolished. The
complaint itself was filed on 14.09.2006 when the Rules of 2006
came into force and before that, the writ petitioner's
appointment was never challenged. It was held that there was no
right accrued under the repealed circular of Panchayat Shiksha
Mitras much less any right on the complainant to be appointed
in the place of the writ petitioner. It was categorically held that
after 01.07.2006, no person who was earlier an aspirant for the
post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra, can be appointed only because
his/her name figured in the list of 'Panchayat Shiksha Mitra'.
The decision of the Full Bench is squarely on the facts arising in
the present case also.
6. We find no reason to entertain the appeal and
the same stands dismissed.
(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)
( Partha Sarthy, J)
Saurabh/Bibhash
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 18.07.2023
Transmission Date
