MITHILESH YADAV Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON the basis of a select list (Annexure -3) published on 30.01.2003, the petitioner claims to have been appointed as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra (for short "PSM?) in the Gram Panchayat, Chanpi, Sherghati vide engagement letter dated 01.04.2003 (Annexure -4). He gave his joining in the concerned school which was accepted. Subsequently, he was sent for training under the orders of the Block Education Extension Officer, Sherghati, Gaya which was successfully completed by him. It is further claimed that he was considered and recommended for extension/renewal of his engagement as PSM for another term of 11 months. The Mukhiya of the concerned Gram Panchayat under letter dated 29.03.2004 extended/renewed the engagement of the petitioner as PSM for another 11 months. It is stated that although he completed 11 months as PSM but was not paid his honorarium. On 25.06.2005, the Vidyalaya Shiksha Samiti again recommended his name for grant of extension for a period of 11 months. Subsequently, the same was allowed vide letter No. 07 dated 01.07.2005 (Annexure -9). Although the petitioner was a candidate in BC category but he was wrongly treated by the Appointment Committee under EBC category. However, he was allowed to continue inasmuch as his engagement was also renewed. A grievance was raised by him about non -payment of the honorarium whereafter the Block Development Officer instructed the Block Education Extension Officer, Sherghati to take necessary steps in this regard. In the meanwhile, Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teacher (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules 2006 (for short "the Rules?) came into effect and by virtue of Rule 20(iii) thereof, he claims to have been absorbed as the Panchayat Teacher. Since payment of his honorarium for the period(s) he worked as PSM was not made, the petitioner approached this Court vide C.W.J.C. No. 12328 of 2006 which was disposed of by order dated 20.08.2007 (Annexure -10) permitting him to approach the Collector of the district within one month for ventilation of grievance and the Collector of the district was directed to examine the same. Within the time granted by this Court, the petitioner could not file his representation and as such, he filed an application vide M.J.C. No. 2632 of 2007 for modification of the order which was rejected whereafter he filed an appeal which was disposed of giving him liberty to file representation within two weeks vide order dated 28.01.2008 (Annexure -11). The petitioner submitted a representation before the District Magistrate whereafter he was directed to appear in the said case bearing No. 08 of 2008 and file his show cause which was filed on 28.03.2008. A show cause on behalf of the Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat was also filed. The matter thereafter remained hanging. The petitioner, in such circumstances, again filed a writ petition vide C.W.J.C. No. 4435 of 2009 which was disposed of on 28.07.2011 (Annexure -13). In the light of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, this Court observed as under in the said order:

(2.) IN the light of the said liberty, the petitioner filed an appeal before the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Gaya (for short "the Authority?) which gave rise to Case No. 69 of 2011. The Authority considered the submission of the parties and perused the materials on record including the order passed by the District Magistrate (Annexure -2) and found that the name of the petitioner did not figure in the renewal order which was passed on 01.07.2005. It further appears therefrom that the Block Development Officer took a stand before the District Magistrate that the engagement period of the petitioner as PSM was not extended and as such, he was not allowed to continue as PSM w.e.f. 01.03.2004. In the light of the aforesaid facts as also considering the detailed order passed by the District Magistrate (Annexure -2), the Authority refused to grant any relief to the petitioner for payment of honorarium holding further that no such re -engagement as PSM can be ordered in the light of the rule/provision. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ application.

(3.) THE Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the order passed by the Authority, the petitioner was found to have been engaged initially as PSM in breach of the roaster. His initial selection as PSM was not renewed/extended. Relying on, 2011 (4) PLJR 846, it is contended that engagement/appointment in breach of roaster would not make his selection as PSM illegally. The finding with regard to non -renewal of his appointment as PSM could not have been entertained in view of law laid down in the case of Kalpana Rani versus State of Bihar [ : 2014 (2) PLJR 665] as the petitioner continued on the post of PSM until promulgation of Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teacher (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules 2006 (for short "the Rules") w.e.f. 1.7.2006. A PSM, who was working on the said post on 1.7.2006 by fiction of law as contemplated under Rule 20(iii) of the Rules automatically became Panchayat Teachers (PTs) and the posts of PSM stood abolished.