Re. Interlocutory Application No. 5845 of 2012.

1. This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed by the appellant for condonation of delay of 562 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal.

2. The appellant claims that against the judgment and order dated 1st October 2010, the appellant pursued the remedy of review in Civil Review no. 337 of 2011. Therefore, the delay.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the delay is condoned.

4. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of.

Re. Letters Patent Appeal No. 1385 of 2012.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 1st October 2010 made by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 11340 of 2010, the appellant has preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.

6. It appears that pursuant to the 2005 selection process the appellant was appointed as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra under the Gram Panchayat, Saisad, Block Dinara, District – Rohtas. Her appointment as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra came to be challenged by the petitioner Renu Kumari before the District Magistrate, Rohtas. As the District Magistrate, Rohtas did not consider the objection raised by the writ petitioner; she approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in CWJC No. 3379 of 2009.

This Court (Coram: Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.), under order dated 20th March 2009, directed the District Magistrate to consider the matter and do the needful. Pursuant to the said direction, the District Magistrate, under his order dated 8th January 2010, observed that the writ petitioner Renu Kumari had secured higher marks than the appellant. The appointment of the appellant was, therefore, ordered to be cancelled. However, in view of abolition of the cadre of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra, he did not order appointment of the writ petitioner.

8. Feeling aggrieved, the writ petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in above CWJC No. 11340 of 2010.

9. In the said Writ Petition, the writ petitioner did not implead the appellant as party respondent. Pursuant to the finding recorded by the District Magistrate, the learned single Judge has allowed the Writ Petition and has held that the writ petitioner is deemed to have been appointed as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra and is deemed to have been regularized as Panchayat Teacher under the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teachers (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 2006”).

10. The learned single Judge has, therefore, directed that the writ petitioner Renu Kumari be appointed as Panchayat Teacher under the Rules of 2006. Therefore, this Appeal.

11. Learned advocate Mr. Siddharth Harsh has appeared for the respondent no. 1, the writ petitioner. He has contested the Appeal.

12. Mr. Siddharth Harsh has submitted that the appellant has no locus standi to challenge the impugned order made in favour of the writ petitioner. Unless she succeeds in her challenge to the order of the District Magistrate and the consequent order of the Appellate Authority, she has no locus standi to challenge the impugned order.

13. We see no merit in the contention raised before us. The contention is rejected outright.

14. The order of the learned single Judge directing appointment of the writ petitioner as Panchayat Teacher on the premise that she is deemed to have been appointed as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra and she is deemed to have been absorbed as Panchayat Teacher by operation of Rule 20(iii) of the Rules of 2006 is manifestly wrong and is not sustainable.

15. The view taken by the learned single Judge is contrary to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court [to which one of us (the Chief Justice) was the party] in the matter of Smt. Renu Kumari Pandey Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. [2011 (4) PLJR 297]. This Court has held that after the abolition of the cadre of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra, no appointment as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra can be made. There cannot be deemed appointment as Pan