IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15521 of 2010 SUDHISH KUMAR SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. ----------- 3 17.5.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner is supposed to be the Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat against whom respondent no.8, Manju Kumari filed a case before the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority, Nalanda alleging many a things in the manner in which selection, appointment to the post of Panchayat teacher came to be made in the said Panchayat. The allegation of the petitioner is that even though she was a trained candidate and also appeared in the counselling her claim was ignored for obvious reason and other persons came to be accommodated detrimental to her interest. Parties were heard including the official of the Panchayat and there are materials to show that the name of private respondent did figure in the list of 27 candidates amongst the lot. Counselling was done but claim of private respondent was ignored when her claim was superior to one or all. The Court need not take notice of all the so called wrong doing which did take place in the process of appointment but the findings are good enough not to interfere with the order passed by the appellate authority for conducting counselling for private respondent Manju Kumari. This order was passed on 20th May 2010. Learned counsel representing the private - 2 - respondent informs the Court that in gross derogation and violation of this direction the petitioner went ahead and made appointment and did not hold counselling for private respondent as directed. Merely because the appellate authority does not have power for enforcement of its order which is quasi judicial its direction cannot be ignored. In view of above the order passed by the appellate authority is affirmed. A direction is issued to the petitioner that he shall ensure that counselling be done within a period of four weeks from receipt of the copy of this order. Failure to do so may entail initiation of a contempt proceeding against the petitioner because he has the obligation to implement or carry out directions in compliance of judicial order even if it is a quasi judicial authority. This writ application stands dismissed with the direction above. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)