Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 542 (PAT)

Satyendra Kumar Ram v. State of Bihar

2012-03-29

BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA, R.M.DOSHIT

body2012
ORDER Re. Interlocutory Application No. 2323 of 2012. The delay of 239 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is condoned. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Re. Letters Patent Appeal No. 432 of 2012. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 10th May 2011 made by the learned single Judge in above CWJC No. 16589 of 2010, the petitioner has preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. 2. The appellant was appointed under the then prevalent scheme as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra in 2003 on a contract for 11 months. Since the expiry of 11 months in 2004, the appellant was not continued as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra. All his efforts to be appointed as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra failed. The appellant also failed in the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution in CWJC No. 4125 of 2006. Although the learned single Judge recorded that the appellant had no enforceable legal right; though the writ petition was allowed to be withdrawn, the appellant was allowed to pursue his claim through a representation. Pursuant to the said observation, the appellant appears to have approached the District Teachers’ Employment Appellate Authority, Siwan in Appeal No. 64 of 2010. The same has been rejected on 6th May 2010. The challenge to the said order in above CWJC No. 16589 of 2010 has failed. Therefore, this Appeal. 3. The claim made by the appellant deserves to be dismissed for the reasons- (1) The claim is barred by the principle of constructive res judicata; (2) The claim is stale. The appellant is out of service since 2004, he cannot be engaged on the basis of his contractual appointment for 11 months in 2003; and (3) The cadre of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra has since been abolished with effect from 1st July 2006 under the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teachers’ (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006. The learned single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. No case for interference is made out. Appeal is dismissed in limine. ?