UMESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to an order passed by the learned Single Bench on 3rd of March, 2016 in CWJC No. 6305 of 2011 whereby the writ petition filed by the Respondent No. 8 was allowed and the appointment of the appellant as Shiksha Mitra was set aside.

(3.) The facts leading to the present appeal are as under:- That the present appellant was appointed as Shiksha Mitra for 11 months on 19th of May, 2005, but he continued to work as Shiksha Mitra when the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teachers (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 (for short "2006 Rules") came into force. By virtue of such Rules, the Shiksha Mitra stand absorbed as Panchayat Teacher with effect from 1st of July, 2006. On 28th of July, 2006, the writ applicant filed a representation to the District Magistrate against the appointment of the present appellant as Shiksha Mitra. This Court in CWJC No. 11786 of 2006 and many other analogous cases passed an order on 25th of May, 2007 directing the District Magistrate to decide and dispose of the representation in cases in which there was allegation of wrong selection and shall look into that aspect and pass appropriate orders/directions to the concerned Gram Panchayat. In pursuance of such direction the District Magistrate passed an order on 26th of March, 2008 finding illegalities in the appointment process and set aside the appointment of the present appellant. The appellant challenged the said order before this Court in CWJC No. 9946 of 2008. The writ petition was decided on 9th of September, 2010 remitting the matter to the District Teachers' Employment Appellate Authority to decide the appeal filed by the appellant. The District Teachers' Employment Appellate Authority vide order at Annexure-14 on 16th of March, 2011 allowed the appeal and restored the appointment of the appellant as Shiksha Mitra and consequently the absorption as Panchayat Teacher. It is the said order the appellant has challenged before this Court.