IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 8649 of 2010 1. SHEO DEO SHARMA, S/O CHANDRADEO PRASAD MISTRI, R/O JAWAHAR COLONY,ROAD NO. 3, POSTS,PARK,PATNA-1. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY , DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, SITAMARHI. 3. THE DISTRICT BOARD,SITAMARHI THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN . 4. THE SUB DIVISIONAL EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, SITAMARHI. 5. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CUM APPELLATE AUTHORITY,SITAMARHI. ----------- 3 05.07.2010 The petitioner has come to this Court challenging the order of the District Primary Panchayat Teachers Appellate Tribunal, Sitamarhi dated 30.03.2010 which was passed on application as made by the petitioner. Petitioner’s grievance is that petitioner had applied for the post of Assistant Teacher in the District Board, Sitamarhi as an Extremely Backward Class (EBC) candidate. He had prayed for the post of Physical Trained Teacher having the requisite qualification. Counselling was held as per the notification and, thereafter, on 13.02.2010, a merit list was prepared which is Annexure-3 to the writ petition. In this merit list, petitioner has been shown at serial No 18. Being the only candidate with Physical Training Certificate and an EBC, petitioner had to be selected. Petitioner went to the office of the Zila Parishad on 16.02.2010 and was told that the appointment letters have been given and counselling was done on 15.02.2010 and as petitioner was not present, he cannot be given appointment letter now. Petitioner moved the Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the same holding that petitioner, not being present in the counselling, is not entitled to be selected. In the order of the Tribunal, which is Annexure-9, it is clear that the documents appertaining to selection process were produced. It was admitted, as noted in the order of 2 the Tribunal, that merit list was prepared and petitioner was placed at serial No 18. curiously, this merit list is prepared on 13.02.2010 but the Tribunal holds that petitioner was not present in the counselling held on 21.12.2009 which has apparently no relevancy to the present selection process, the programme whereof is Annexure-4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, as instead of opportunity, no counter affidavit has been filed as yet, in my view, the writ petition can be disposed of, with consent of parties, at this stage itself. In my view, the entire stand before the Tribunal is erroneous and the Tribunal has let itself to be misled. If petitioner was not present in the counselling on 21.12.2009 then how did petitioner’s name at all turn up in the merit list that was prepared on 13.02.2010? The Tribunal itself accepts that the record shows that petitioner was at serial No 18 in the merit list still Tribunal holds that petitioner was absent in counselling. The programme is contained in Annexure-4 which does not make a mention of any counselling in the month of December, 2009. To the contrary, as per the programme attached and as per the averment of petitioner, he was called for counselling on 06.02.2010 and it is on basis of his appearance in the counselling that he figured in the merit list. Thus, the entire order of the Tribunal appears to be misconceived both in fact and in law. The petitioner having been placed at serial No 18 in the merit list, he would be now entitled to receive the appointment letter if he is otherwise eligible considering the merit list and the roster in question. Petitioner states stat he is the only Physical Trained Teacher and is an 3 EBC which post respondents are now trying to fill up. This indicates that petitioner had actually been selected but has been wrongly deprived of the appointment letter. In such view of the facts, I am left with no option but to set aside the order of the Appellate Tribunal and direct the respondents to immediately issue appointment letter to the petitioner if he is otherwise qualified and in the merit list as per roster. The appointment letter shall be issued within one week of petitioner’s filing a copy of this order before the concerned Authority. Consequently, no further steps would be taken for filling up the said post by way of fresh counselling. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)