Partha Sarthy, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State of Bihar and learned counsel for the respondent no.11.

2. The petitioner by filing the instant writ application prays for quashing the order contained in memo no.319 dated 4.8.2014 in Appeal Case no.71 of 2013 whereby the Presiding Officer, District Appellate Authority, Katihar was pleased to allow the appeal preferred by the respondent no.11 and set aside the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Panchayat Teacher.

3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner along with others applied for appointment on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra in Gram Panchayat Raj, Katihar. She appeared for counselling and pursuant to her appointment on 11.8.2005, gave her joining on 18.8.2005 in Primary School, Dhusmar. The petitioner has brought on record by way of annexures the appointment letter as also her joining letter.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that with coming of the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 w.e.f. 1.7.2006, the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra stood abolished and all the persons working on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra came to be absorbed as Panchayat Teachers. It was after a considerable period in the year 2013 that an appeal was preferred by the respondent no.11 before the District Appellate Authority which was numbered as Appeal Case no.71 of 2013. The District Appellate Authority by order dated 4.8.2014 (Annexure-4) was pleased to allow the said appeal, set aside the appointment of the petitioner and directed for appointment of respondent no.11 as Panchayat Teacher. It is against this order that the instant writ application has been preferred.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no dispute with respect to the fact that pursuant to the advertisement by the respondents, on an application having been filed by the petitioner she was appointed as a Panchayat Shiksha Mitra on 11.8.2005. On 1.7.2006 i.e. the date the Rules came into force it was the petitioner who was working as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra and thus came to be absorbed as Panchayat Teacher. Referring to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Renu Kumari Pandey vs. The State of Bihar & others [2011(4) PLJR 297(DB)] and more particularly paragraph no.17 thereof, it is submitted that the same came to be affirmed in the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Kalpana Rani vs. State of Bihar [2014 (2) PLJR 665(FB) :2014 (3) BLJ 91]. It is submitted that the order of the Appellate Authority being in teeth of the judgment of the Full Bench as referred to herein above, the order is illegal, not sustainable and fit to be set aside.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that though it is correct that both the petitioner and the respondent no.11 applied for appointment on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra, however, inspite of there being deficiency in the application of the petitioner, her (respondent no.11’s) name was not included in the merit list. As a result of illegality committed by the petitioner, the respondent no.11 was not appointed and instead the petitioner was appointed. Consequently, the respondent no.11 filed a representation before the Block Development Officer as also others. Regular assurance was given to her that the matter would be looked into. Ultimately the respondent no.11 filed Appeal Case no.71 of 2013 before the District Appellate Authority which after hearing all the parties in detail, the order dated 4.8.2014 (Annexure-4), impugned herein, was passed. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondent no.11 was illegally left out and not appointed as Panchayat Shikshak inspite of being selected for appointment. As such, the respondent no.11 be deemed to have been appointed as Panchayat Shikshak and consequently as Panchayat Teacher w.e.f. 1.7.2006. There is no