The main legal point established in the judgment is that no fresh appointment on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra could be made on or after 01.07.2006, as the post was abolished and no longer in existence.

1. Heard counsel for the parties.

2. Both these writ applications arise out of the same impugned order passed by the Block Development Officer, Khutauna, whereby and whereunder, while he has rejected the case of Subodh Kumar Yadav the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 16486/2008 for appointment on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra on the ground that the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra has been abolished on and after 01.07.2006, it has also directed for termination of the service of the Nagmani Prasad petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 13708 of 2008 on the ground that the petitioner Subodh Kumar Yadav despite having secured higher marks and better weightage was wrongly edged out in course of appointing Nagmani Prasad as a Panchayat Shikshamitra.

3. Mr. Hemendra Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Subodh Kumar Yadav has submitted that once the tribunal, the B.D.O. being the competent authority under Rule 18 of Bihar Panchayat Teacher Appointment Rules 2006, hereinafter referred to as the Rules had come to a conclusion that the petitioner Subodh Kumar Yadav was wrongly left out in the process of selection and appointment on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra, he had no option but to issue a direction for appointing the petitioner Subodh Kumar Yadav as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra so that he could be eventually absorbed on the post of Panchayat Teacher in terms of Rule (iii) of Bihar Panchayat Teacher Appointment Rules-2006. In this context, he has placed reliance on an order of Division Bench of this Court dated 23.07.2008 passed in L.P.A No. 945 of 2007 (Manoj Kumar mandal Vs. State of Bihar and others) as also on an order of this Court in the case of Rima Kumari vs The State of Bihar reported in 2012(1) PLJR 107.

4. Counsel for the State on the other hand has submitted that once the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra was abolished w.e.f 01.07.2006, no one could be appointed against an abolished post on any ground whatsoever. He has further explained that the scope of Rule-20(iii) of 2005 Rules was only to absorb the working Panchayat Shiksha Mitra as on 01.07.2006 and not to appoint fresh Panchayat Shiksha Mitra. He has also referred to the clarification issued by the State Government in its letter no. 1899 dated 18.11.2006, whereby and whereunder, the Director of Primary Education had issued the general circular as with regard to making no further appointment on the post of Panchayat shiksha Mitra after 01.07.2006 in view of Bihar Panchayat Shikshak Appointment Rules-2006.

5. In the considered opinion of this court, the submission of learned counsel for the State has to be accepted. The abolition of the post of Shiksha Mitra was fate accompli on account of the Government policy. The qualification and manner of appointment of the two posts i.e. Panchayat Shiksha Mitra and Panchayat Teacher being entirely different, the selection undergone and panel prepared for the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra in fact could not have been utilized for appointment on the post of Panchayat Teacher under the Rules. The Rules infact very clearly envisages the new procedure to be undertaken on the post of Panchayat Teacher. Thus once this aspect becomes clear that the post of Panchayat shiksha Mitra was abolished and no longer in existence on or after 01.07.2006, it would not be difficult for this court to hold that the petitioner could not have been appointed against an abolished post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra so as to be absorbed on the post of Panchayat Teacher. To that extent the reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of this Court in the case of Rima kumari (supra) is itself misconceived, inasmuch as, in paragraph no. 1 it has been conclusively held that:-

“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