After abolition, Panchayat Shiksha Mitra service cannot be retrospectively claimed or deemed under the 2006 Rules.

An advertisement was issued in 2005 for appointment as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra in Gram Panchayat Raj Basaitha, Muzaffarpur. The appellant, Shruti, and respondent no. 8, Sadhu Sahani, applied for the post. Respondent no. 8 was selected on the basis, inter alia, of Madhyama (Visharad) certificates issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad, whereas the appellant was not selected.

Following a complaint, the Block Development Officer reported on 17 April 2007 that respondent no. 8’s Madhyama (Visharad) qualification was not valid for appointment as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra, resulting in cancellation of his appointment.

The District Appellate Authority restored respondent no. 8’s appointment and dismissed the appellant’s claim.

The State Appellate Authority subsequently rejected the appellant’s challenge, holding that respondent no. 8 had continued as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra until the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teachers (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 came into force and was deemed to have become a Panchayat Teacher under Rule 20(iii) with effect from 1 July 2006.

The learned Single Judge dismissed the appellant’s writ petition, leading to the present intra-court appeal.

Whether respondent no. 8’s appointment and subsequent continuation as Panchayat Teacher could be invalidated on the ground that his Madhyama (Visharad) qualification was allegedly unrecognized or invalid for appointment as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra.

Whether, after the abolition of the Panchayat Shiksha Mitra scheme and the coming into force of the 2006 Rules, respondent no. 8 could be deemed to have been employed as Panchayat Teacher with effect from 1 July 2006 under Rule 20(iii).

Whether the learned Single Judge erred in declining to interfere with the orders of the State and District Appellate Authorities.

The Court applied Rule 20(iii) of the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teachers (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006, under which persons holding the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra were deemed to have been employed as Panchayat Teachers with effect from 1 July 2006.

It relied on Smt. Renu Kumari Pandey v. State of Bihar, 2011 (4) PLJR 297 (DB), for the principle that, after abolition of the Panchayat Shiksha Mitra post, no person could be retrospectively appointed or claim retrospective employment as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra/Panchayat Teacher.

That principle was affirmed by the Full Bench in Kalpana Rani v. State of Bihar, 2014 (2) PLJR 665 (FB).

The Court also noted that respondent no. 8 possessed an Intermediate qualification issued by the Bihar Intermediate Education Council.

The Court held that respondent no. 8 was admittedly working as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra before the 2006 Rules came into force and that the post was abolished with effect from 1 July 2006.

Consequently, his status after that date had to be examined under Rule 20(iii), which provided for deemed employment as Panchayat Teacher.

The Court accepted the State Appellate Authority’s finding that respondent no. 8 had continued in service and also possessed an Intermediate qualification.

Applying Renu Kumari Pandey and Kalpana Rani, the Court treated the prohibition against retrospective employment as supporting the statutory transition created by the 2006 Rules, rather than permitting the appellant to reopen the appointment retrospectively.

Although the appellant relied on the alleged invalidity of the Madhyama (Visharad) qualification and the 2007 inquiry report, the Court found no legal error in the appellate authorities’ conclusion or in the learned Single Judge’s refusal to interfere.

It held that respondent no. 8’s continuation and deemed employment as Panchayat Teacher under Rule 20(iii) could not be disturbed in the circumstances of the case, and that the learned Single Judge had correctly declined to interfere with the State Appellate Authority’s order.

The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit, with no order as to costs.