Ravi Ranjan, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State.

2. Petitioners seek quashing of Annexure-9 which is order dated 8.11.2010 passed by the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Muzaffarpur by which appointment of the petitioners as Shiksha Mitra has been cancelled.

3. The petitioners claim to have been engaged as Shiksha Mitra on 30.5.2005, 5.1.2006 and 30.5.2006 respectively. Initially engagement was for 11 months which, for the petitioner no. 1, was extended further for 11 months vide Annexure-2 dated 30.5.2006. However, after expiry of 11 months period the State Government took a decision vide Annexure-5 to absorb the Panchayat Shiksha Mitra who were working at the relevant time as Panchayat Teacher when Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teacher (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules 2006") were incorporated made effective from 1.7.2006. Eventually the petitioners were also engaged as Panchayat Teachers with effect from 1.7.2006 which was not challenged immediately thereafter before any authority. The petitioners engagement as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra was never challenged by any one. However, after about 1½ years of their absorption as Panchayat Shikshak, one Surya Mani Sah filed a petition before the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur alleging illegality and irregularity committed in the appointment of petitioners as Shiksha Mitra. The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur vide order dated 23.5.2009 (Annexure-7) took a decision to cancel the petitioners' appointment as Shiksha Mitra and eventually their absorption as Panchayat Teachers. The aforesaid order passed by the District Magistrate was challenged by the petitioner Jai Shankar Das by filing C.W.J.C. No. 11668 of 2009 which was disposed of vide order dated 7.11.2009 as contained in Annexure-8, quashing the memo no. 2142 dated 23.5.2009 (Annexure-7), however, granting liberty to the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur that, if so advised, he may refer the matter to the District Teachers employment Appellate Authority, Muzaffarpur for proper adjudication. It appears that the District Magistrate had referred the same to the appellate authority which has passed the impugned order as contained in Annexure-9.

4. At the time of hearing of this application it was urged on behalf of the petitioners that their engagement as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra were never put to challenge within the time period prescribed under the Panchayat Shiksha Mitra employment guidelines. However, after 1½ years after their absorption as Panchayat Teachers, their initial engagement as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra came to be challenged by one Surya Mani Sah before the District Magistrate who did not have any authority to entertain such application, therefore, his order was quashed vide Annexure-8. However, the aforesaid Surya Mani Sah did not approach the District Magistrate for reference of the matter to appellate authority, rather, the same was referred by the District Magistrate himself. The appellate authority has proceeded to decide the case without even impleading the aforesaid Surya Mani Sah in the matter.

5. However, sole ground is being raised on behalf of the petitioners is that after absorption as Panchayat Teacher they would be governed by the Rules framed for that purpose. A Division Bench of this Court in Renu Kumari Pandey v. State of Bihar [2011 (4) PLJR 297] has held that the aforesaid Rules are statutory in nature and have to be maintained in letter and spirit. Under Clause (i) of Rule 20 of the Rules all earlier resolutions, Orders, directions issued in respect of employment of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra stood repealed. Consequently, the posts of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra also stood abolished. Thus, it is contended that there was no occasion for examination of illegality of initial engagement of petitioners as Shiksha Mitra prior to their absorption as Panchayat Teachers inasmuch as the Division Bench has further held that app