ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. 2. Appointments were made on the post of Shiksha Mitra on 3.5.2005. The appointment was contractual in nature for a period of 11 months only expiring on 3.4.2006. The petitioners were aggrieved by their non-selection. They came to this Court in CWJC No. 7862 of 2005. On 1.7.2006 Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 came into force. It granted the status of Panchayat Shikshak to the Shiksha Mitra, who were on duty as on 1.7.2006, the date of coming into force of the Rules. It was not brought to the attention of the Court. On 19.7.2006 the writ petition was disposed with directions to consider and dispose off the representation of the petitioners with regard to their non-appointment within a period of three months. 3. The order dated 2.2.2007 then came to be passed, inter alia, of illegalities in the selection. The enquiry report stated that in accordance with the merit list the petitioners 1 & 2 should have been appointed in unreserved category. The appointments were, therefore, set aside. 4. Those whose appointments were set aside came to this Court in CWJC No.2932 of 2007. By order dated 30.5.2007, this Court directed the Collector to examine individual cases to arrive at a determination of those who had been appointed illegally by separating those who may have been appointed legally and to make a fresh determination. 5. That the appointments were contractual in nature for a period of 11 months, which had already lapsed on 3.4.2006, does not appear to have been placed before the Court when the order dated 30.5.2007 was being passed. The Court appears to have proceeded on the basis that they were appointed only with no time limits. 6. The petitioners are now aggrieved by the refusal of the Respondents to consider their names in view of the enquiry report for the reason that in the meantime the new recruitment Rules have come into force. 7. The controversy relates to the appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra for the period from 3.5.2005 to 3.4.2006. The time has long passed. Thereafter the right to continue for two successive periods of 11 months was inchoate on which no cause of action can be founded. The enquiry report undoubtedly holds that the petitioners have been wronged.
7. The controversy relates to the appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra for the period from 3.5.2005 to 3.4.2006. The time has long passed. Thereafter the right to continue for two successive periods of 11 months was inchoate on which no cause of action can be founded. The enquiry report undoubtedly holds that the petitioners have been wronged. But on account of expiry of the period for which the relief could have been granted, the whole exercise becomes academic. Thereafter, new Rules have come into force. The question of grant of appointment to the petitioners during the period of their claim which has already been lapsed, therefore, does not arise. To that extent the Court finds it difficult to grant any relief to the petitioners. 8. In view of the enquiry report that petitioners 1 & 2 had been illegally wronged, this Court does consider it proper to grant costs to them quantified at Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) each to be paid by the District Magistrate, East Champaran at Motihari within a period of four weeks. The District Magistrate is further directed to hold an enquiry of the circumstances in which and those responsible for the interpolation in the merit list leading to the denial of appointment to petitioners 1 & 2 and to recover the entire costs from the salary of the erring persons/ officials after giving them an opportunity to show cause. If any of them are found to be not a Government employee, the District Magistrate shall be at liberty to institute proceedings against them under the Bihar & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act for recovery of costs. 9. The writ application stands disposed.