KRISHNA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard counsel for the petitioner and the opposite parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appointment of one Raj Kumar Sharma as Shiksha Mitra in preference to the petitioner was held to be bad and void ab initio. His absorption as a Panchayat Shikshak therefore could not be sustained. The petitioner as the next candidate of the category in order of merit was directed by the Division Bench to be considered. The order has not been complied with.

(2.) The Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Appointment and Service Condition) Rules, 2006 in Rule 20(ii) provides that all persons working as Shiksha Mitra on 1.7.2006 acquired the status of a Panchayat Shikshak. Thereafter, the essential eligibility for appointment, including the procedures, all underwent a statutory change. It has been held in more than one order of the Court that a person wrongly appointed as a Shiksha Mitra could not claim continuation under Rule 20(H), perpetuating the illegality. But a person wrongly denied appointment as a Shiksha Mitra could not claim the right to appointment as a Panchayat Shikshak automatically after 1.7.2006.

(3.) In Renu Kumari Pandey v. State of Bihar, 2011 4 PLJR 297 it was held at paragraph-1 as follows:--