Ashutosh Kumar, J. – Heard Mr. Mrigank Mauli, the learned Senior Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad, the learned Senior Advocate for respondent No. 11.

2. The State is represented by Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwari, the learned A.C. to A.A.G.-13.

3. This appeal is against the order dated 28.08.2019 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 17523 of 2019, whereby the writ petition was dismissed in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kalpana Rani vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.; 2014 (2) PLJR 665 [: 2014 (3) BLJ 91].

4. Since the order was very cryptic, the appeal was first entertained on 14.12.2021, when the Bench hearing the matter found that the appeal needed to be allowed inter alia for various reasons but primarily for the reason of the order under challenge to be non-speaking. Nonetheless, the matter was adjourned for a further hearing.

5. In Kalpana Rani (supra), it has been held by the Full Bench in paragraph 106 as hereunder: –

“106. A question, therefore, would arise as to whether in term of the repeal of the executive instruction of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra in terms of Rule 20(i) of 2006 Rules, could any dispute be adjudicated for appointment on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra? The answer to this must be in negative, inasmuch as, if the entire provision for Panchayat Shiksha Mitra was itself repealed, there could not have been any appointment on the abolished post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra. It is this aspect of the matter which has been dealt elaborately in the earlier Division Bench judgment in the case of Smt. Renu Kumar Pandey (supra) and I do not find any error in the same.”

6. Certain facts are necessary to be recounted for disposing of this appeal finally.

7. The Government of Bihar in the Department of Primary, Secondary and Adult Education came out with a Resolution dated 11.08.2004, in which it was resolved that Panchayat Shiksha Mitras shall be engaged on contract basis and that such appointees ought to be not more than 30 years on 1st of January of the year in which the engagement/appointment is to take place.

8. The appellant and respondent No. 11, both, had applied as according to their estimation, they had requisite qualification and the age to apply for being engaged as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra. For some reason or the other, specially litigation, the engagement process could not be taken up in the year 2004 and it was extended to 2005.

9. Later, by a Circular, it was clarified that the aspirants/applicants who had filed their requisite application in the year 2004 would not require to file fresh application for their consideration.

10. Pursuant to the process which was started in 2005, the appellant was appointed on the post of Shiksha Mitra on 10.05.2005. However, the appointment of the appellant was cancelled for which a communication was made by the Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat, Gyaspur addressed to the Head-Master, Primary School, Gyaspur, whereby it was intimated that the appellant had wrongly been appointed even though he was overage.

11. The appellant challenged the aforesaid cancellation of his engagement vide C.W.J.C. No. 14497 of 2005, wherein the issue was whether it was justified for the Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat, Gyaspur to have cancelled the appointment of the appellant.

12. The Bench hearing the matter vide order dated 17.02.2009 found that since the appointment was to be made as per the Government’s Resolution dated 11.08.2004, referred to above, issued by the Department of Primary, Secondary and Adult Education, Government of Bihar, the appellant was resident of the same Panchayat, had the Intermediate degree with 45 marks and on 1st of January, 2004, he was not more than 30 years of age and, therefore, he could not have been removed and his engagement could not have been cancelled even though the appointment was made in the year 2005, when on the date of appointment, the appellant had crossed 30 years of age.

13. Taking this into account, the learned Single Judge found that the order of c