IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1497 of 2010 1. RAM PUKAR PRASAD CHAURASIA S/O LATE SAUKHI CHAURASIA SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ JHOURAHI, BLOCK- CHEHRA KALA, DISTT- VAISHALI 2. INDRABHUSAN SAH S/O SRI KANT LAL SAH, MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ JHAURAHI, BLOCK-CHEHRA KALA, DISTT- VAISHALI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR,PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT TEACHER APPOINTMENT APPELLATE AUTHORITY VAISHALI AT HAZIPUR 4. THE MEMBER, null DISTRICT TEACHER, APPOINTMENT APPELLATE AUTHORITY, VAISHALI AT HAZIPUR 5. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, VAISHALI AT HAZIPUR 6. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, BLOCK-CHEHRA KALAN, DISTT- VAISHALI AT HAZIPUR 7. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, BLOCK- CHEHRA KALAN, DISTT- VAISLAHI AT HAZIPUR 8. MD. SERAZUL HAQUE, WORKING AS SADHAN SEVI IN BLOCK RESOURCES CENTRE, CHEHRA KALA, DISTT- VAISHALI AT HAZIPUR 9. SMT. ABHILASHA D/O BIRENDRA PRASAD R/O VILL- MANSURPUR HALAIYA, BLOCK+P.S- CHEHRA KALA, DISTT- VAISHALI, AT HAZIPUR ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajendra Pd Singh,Sr. Advocate Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arjun Prasad Singh AC to SC 2 For Respondent No. 9: Mr. Bhola Bhai Desai, Advocate -------- 4. 26.04.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State as also the learned Counsel for Respondent No. 9. The petitioners are stated to be the Secretary and Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat Raj, Jhaurahi, Block Chehra Kalan, District Vaishali. They are aggrieved by he order of the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority, Vaishali dated 16.9.2009. The order directs consideration of Respondent No. 9 for appointment on the ground that she was denied consideration despite the fact that she had requisite marks and had also filed objection with regard to non-inclusion of her name in the merit panel. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Respondent No. 9 had in fact never applied and neither had she filed objection within time. The Block Development Officer was the authority competent to enquire into any grievances of Respondent no. 9 of the 2 present nature under the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Appointment and Service Condition) Rules, 2006. Without availing that remedy appropriately, application was preferred directly before the Appellate Tribunal. There is no finding of the Tribunal based on documentary evidence and materials that the petitioner had applied within time in the manner prescribed or that she had filed any objection to the non inclusion of her name in the merit panel within the time prescribed. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent No. 5. It supports the order of the Tribunal urging that the writ petition has no merit. Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 9 invites attention of the Court to the pleadings contained in Para 7 and 15 of his counter affidavit to urge that in the proceeding before the Appellate Authority the Block Education Extension Officer had accepted that the petitioner had in fact applied within time. That the date of receipt of her objection was wrongly mentioned as 1.8.2009 in place of 4.12.2008. The Court was not inclined to entertain the writ application at the behest of Mukhiya and Sarpanch on the premise that they had no personal interest in the matter and that they were not expected to pursue the order of the Appellate Authority in the manner of private litigant, specially when the State respondents in the Department of Panchayati Raj adopted to accept and implement the order of the Tribunal. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that if the order of the Appellate Authority is not inconsonance with law nothing precludes the petitioners from questioning that order even if the State respondents have not questioned it. 3 The Court finds substance in the submission. A frivolous challenge laid out not disclosing sufficient grounds and a challenge laid out on cogent grounds in such a situation shall merit different consideration. The order of the Appellate Tribunal does not contain any discussion of the materials and reasons on which it may have arrived at any conclusion that the Respondent no. 9 had applied within time on 11.11.2008 as urged on her behalf and that she had filed an objection on 4.12.2008 against non-inclusion of her name as also urged. After noticing the claims of Respondent no. 9 the Appellate Authority has arrived at an abrupt conclusion that since she had higher marks and she had filed objection, non consideration of her candidature was bad. The order is devoid of materials for satisfaction on facts. What may have transpired before the Appellate Authority, as urged on behalf of Respondent no. 9, is a matter known to the person/persons presiding as the Appellate Authority only. If certain developments had taken place during the proceeding, it should have found consideration in the records of the proceeding itself. In absence of the same, it is not possible for this Court to decipher what may or may not have transpired before the Appellate Authority. Learned Counsel for the State has produced the original records of the Appellate Authority also. Even after going through the original record the Court finds it difficult to arrive at any conclusion of the materials on which the findings of the authority are based. The impugned order of the Appellate Authority dated 16.9.2009 is accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded to the Appellate Authority to pass a fresh, reasoned and speaking order discussing:- (a) What may or may not have transpired before it during the proceeding; 4 (b) A clear finding based on documentary evidence or oral evidence that the Respondent No. 9 had in fact applied on 11.11.2008as urged on her behalf; and ( c ) That the Respondent no. 9 had filed an objection to the non inclusion of her name in the merit panel on 4.12.2008. Let such fresh order be passed by the Appellate Authority within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt and/or presentation of a copy of this order. The order dated 16.9.2009 of the Appellate Authority is therefore set aside to facilitate such fresh order. The writ application stands allowed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)