IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7869 of 2008 Nitesh Kumar, son of Bigu Ram Singh, resident of village Bhilaipur, P.O. Bishunpur, P.S. Minapur, District- Muzaffarpur. …………. Petitioner Versus 1.The State Of Bihar 2.The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 3.The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, District- Muzaffarpur 4.The District Superintendent of Education, Muzaffarpur, District- Muzaffarpur 5.The Block Development Officer, Minapur, District- Muzaffarpur 6.The Block Education Extension Officer, Minapur, District- Muzaffarpur 7.The Mukhiya Gram Panc hayat Raj, Bara Bharati, Block Minapur, District- Muzaffarpur 8.The Panchayat Sevak, Panchayat Raj Bara Bharati, Block- Minapur, District- Muzaffarpur. ……….. Respondents ---------------------------------- 2. 11/08/2011 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while this writ application was pending in this Court, some matters in respect of appointment of Panchayat Teachers of same Panchayat, who were appointed along with the petitioner, were considered by the concerned Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority found the appointment of only two teachers as invalid and passed certain directions. The order of the Appellate Authority is annexed as Annexure-13, which is dated 15.7.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of eight teachers, who were appointed, the Appellate Authority has found 2 the services of only two teachers as invalid and in respect of other five teachers before it, direction was issued to post them at appropriate places. Hence, he submits that the services of the petitioner, who was the only teacher not before the Appellate Authority, should be presumed to be valid and therefore petitioner should also get the relief as granted to the five teachers by the Appellate Authority. This Court is unable to accept the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. As the petitioner was not before the Appellate Authority, it cannot be presumed that his case was also considered and any finding which was given by the Appellate Authority, in respect of the five teachers, would apply to him also. It is difficult to say that if the case of the petitioner would have been considered by the Appellate Authority, it must have found his appointment valid. There was no guarantee that along with the two teachers, whose appointments were found invalid, the Appellate Authority would not have found appointment of the petitioner also invalid. It may be that, if the Appellate 3 Authority would have been satisfied, it would have found the appointment of the petitioner valid along with other five teachers. Either of the possibility was open. Hence, this Court is not inclined to allow any benefit of the order of the Appellate Authority to the petitioner only on presumption. The writ application is dismissed. However, petitioner will be at liberty to move the Appellate Authority in accordance with law in which event appropriate orders may be passed in his case also in the light of the order already passed by it in respect of other teachers. If the petitioner applies for the same, the Appellate Authority will be at liberty to examine his case and come to a definite finding on facts and on law as to whether petitioner falls in the category of five teachers, whose services were approved or in the category of two teachers whose services were found invalid. Final decision in this regard must be taken within two months from the date of filing of appeal by the petitioner. Pradeep/ ( J. N. Singh,J.)