IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
LPA No.1569 of 2010
1. Kalpana Rani W/O Sri Sanjeev Kumar Thakur R/O Vill
Mohiuddinpur, P.O. Hansa, P.S.Warishnagar, Distt-
Samastipur ... Appellant.
Versus
1.The State Of Bihar , Through The Principal Secretary,
Human Resources Development Department Government Of
Bihar, Patna
2. The Director, Primary Education , Human Resources
Development Department Government Of Bihar, Patna
3. The District Magistrate Samastipur, Distt-Samastipur
4. The District Superintendent Of Education Samastipur,
Distt-Samastipur
5. The Block Development Officer Warishnagar, Distt-
Samastipur
6. The Block Education Officer Warishnagar, Distt-Samastipur
7. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Mohiuddinpur, P.S.
Warishangar, Distt-Samastipur
8. The Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Mohiuddinpur, Block-
Warishangar, Distt-Samastipur
9. Shabana Praveen D/O Md.Yaseen R/O Vill Mohiuddinpur,
P.O. Hansa, P.S.Warishnagar, Distt-Samastipur
10.Prashant Kumar S/O Sri Dinesh Prasad Thakur R/O Vill
Mohiuddinpur, P.S.Warishnagar, Distt-Samastipur..
Respondents.
-----------
8. 28.09.2011 By the order under appeal, the writ Court has
interfered with the order of the District Magistrate passed in
favour of appellant against respondent no.10 on two grounds,
firstly, it has been held by the writ court that the District
Magistrate lacked proper jurisdiction and in spite of remand
made by this Court he could not have decided the issue.
We do not have much difficulty in answering this
issue but the other ground on which the writ court has based its
2
order is that no appointment could have been offered to the
appellant because the post of Shiksha Mitra stood abolished on
account of new Rules of 2006. This view of the writ court finds
support from a recent Division Bench judgment of this Court in
the case of Smt. Renu Kumari Pandey v. The State of Bihar,
C.W.J.C.No. 10113 of 2007 and some other analogous cases
decided on 23rd of August, 2011.
Mr. Y.V.Giri, Senior Advocate submits that the views
of the Division Bench in the aforesaid judgment require
reconsideration by a larger Bench because the post of Shiksha
Mitra did not stand abolished altogether, rather the incumbents
were given better service under a fresh nomenclature of
Panchayat Shikshak in terms of Rule 20 of the new Rules of
2006. He has further submitted that the State Government itself
recognized the rights of reengagement of Shiksha Mitra after
2006 Rules, in case they had been earlier removed on account
of not having the qualification of Intermediate and if they
acquired such qualification within the time permitted by the
State Government, which was three years. On the basis of such
stand of the State Government giving opportunity of enhancing
the qualification upto Intermediate as per the requirement of
new Rules, several orders accepting and approving such policy
3
have been passed by this Court even in Division Bench. In view
of the aforesaid submissions and stand taken by Mr. Giri, we are
inclined to admit this application for hearing by a Full Bench.
Since Respondent nos. 9 and 10 have already appeared and the
other respondents are represented by learned counsel for the
State, there is no need of issuing notice.
Considering that large number of cases are arising on
the aforesaid issue, it is desirable that this appeal be heard by a
Full Bench at an early date which may be got fixed by the
Office under orders of Hon’ble the Chief Justice.
An extra copy of the Memorandum of appeal along
with relevant documents for use of the Full Bench should be
filed within six weeks, failing which this appeal shall stand
dismissed without further reference to a Bench.
In case the appellant is still working on the post in
question then she will be permitted to work until further orders.
(Shiva Kirti Singh,J)
Jay/
(Shivaji Pandey, J)