Mihir Kr. Jha, J.-Having heard counsel for the parties as with regard to the following relief:-

"This is an application for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Siksha Mitra in Pipra Khem Panchayat in place of respondent no. 9 whose appointment has been cancelled by the enquiry officer/respondent no. 4 and selected the petitioner for appointment under the reserved seat for general woman and/or further writ or direction commanding the respondent to give the joining letter to the petitioner and treat her in service w.e.f. 14.2.2006 as the enquiry officer has found in enquiry that the respondent no. 9 has illegally been appointed in the reserved general woman seat though he comes from male most backward class."

while this Court is of the considered opinion that upon abolition of the post of Shiksha Mitra in terms of the Government policy and enforcement of Bihar Parichayat Prarambhik Shikshak (Niyojan Awam Seva Sarta) Niyamawali, 2006 no writ of mandamus can be issued for appointing the petitioner on the abolished post of Shiksha Mitra. Admittedly the petitioner was not appointed as Shiksha Mitra prior to 30.6.2006 and therefore, her absorption on the post of Panchayat Shikshak in terms of Rule 20(iii) of 2006 Rules reading as follows:-

"~ ~ f.mR ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ r1~l-jlq(11, ~, ~, ~ 31TR ~

~ ~ rom ~ ~ "q:ci W:rr fl

"tR ~ >['i:JTCf ~ ~ I"

is not possible. The prayer of the petitioner to that extent must be rejected.

2. The other part of the grievance of the petitioner is pertaining to illegal selection of respondent no. 9 about whom it has been claimed that even when he had secured lesser marks in the qualifying examination, he was favoured by the Mukhiya while eliminating more •meritorious candidates including the petitioner securing higher marks. This part of the assertion of the petitioner in paragraph no. 16 of the writ petition reads as follows:-

"That it is stated and submitted that the respondent has obtained total 455 marks in the IA examination and the petitioner obtained total 530 marks in the I.A. examination but the same was not considered and illegally appointed the respondent no. 9 in• place of the petitioner by way of manipulating in the application form by the respondent Mukhiya and Secretary."

3. There is no counter affidavit on behalf of any of the respondents and the counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 9 also does not dispute that the marks secured by respondent no. 9 in the qualifying examination as disclosed in the writ application was 455 as against the petitioner's marks of 530. Counsel for respondent no. 9, however, has tried to explain that whereas the petitioner belongs to general category, respondent no. 9 is of OBC category and therefore, his such selection and appointment despite having secured lower qualifying marks was justified. Counsel for respondent no. 9 in this regard has further explained that owing to an allegation made by the petitioner, the appointment of respondent no. 9 on the post of Shiksha Mitra was cancelled by the Block Development Officer by an order dated 1 .4.2008 but the said order was set aside by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 18513/2008 and therefore, the order of appointment of respondent no. 9 has now become valid and legal in view of the order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 18513/2008. He would, therefore, submit that there would be no need to go into the question of further enquiry in the allegation made by the petitioner as with regard to anomaly/illegality in the appointment of respondent no. 9. He has further submitted that the District Teachers Appellate Authority created under Rule 18 of 2006 Rules can look into only the complaints arising out of selection and appointment of' Panchayat Shikshak and not on the post of Shiksha Mitra and therefore, no one can now be directed to examine the alleged illegality in the selection and appointment of respondent no. 9 on the post of Shiksha Mitra.

4. I