IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11104 of 2007 AKHILESH KUMAR, SON OF SATISH PRASAD YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BAGHRA, POLICE STATION PURAINI BAZAR, DISTRICT MADHEPURA………………..PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, SECONDARY, PRIMARY AND ADULT EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MADHEPURA 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, MADHEPURA 5. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, PURAINI, DISTRICT MADHEPURA 6. THE MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT, BANSH GOPAL BLOCK PURAINI, DISTRICT, MADHEPURA 7. THE PANCHAYAT SACHIV, GRAM PANCHAYAT-BANSH GOPAL, BLOCK PURAINI, DISTRICT MADHEPURA 8. MITHILESH KUMAR YADAV, SON OF BODHI YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHATNAMA, POLICE STATION PURAINI BAZAR, DISTRICT MADHEPURA… RESPONDENTS ------------ 2. 16.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner has filed this writ application for a direction to the respondents for his appointment on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra in Gram Panchayat, Bansh Gopal, Block Puraini, District Madhepura claiming therein that the incumbent who has been appointed has lesser qualification than the petitioner and, therefore, he has been illegally appointed ignoring the preferential claim of the petitioner. It is stated that some enquiry was made - 2 - and appointment of respondent no.8 was found illegal vide Annexures 6 and 7. He submits that as appointment of respondent no.8 has already been found illegal and his appointment has been cancelled, the post becomes vacant and the petitioner is fit to be considered for the same. He submits that in view of the said fact situation, the petitioner has filed representation before the respondent-District Magistrate, Madhepura for consideration of his case for appointment. Therefore, he prays that the writ application may be disposed of with a direction to the said respondent-District Magistrate to consider the representation of the petitioner. He also submits that the petitioner may also be permitted to file another representation for the convenience of the respondent-District Magistrate. To this prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State has no objection. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of with a direction to the respondent- District Magistrate, Madhepura to dispose of the representation of the petitioner as contained in Annexure-8 and pass appropriate orders on the - 3 - same. For the convenience of the respondent- District Magistrate, the petitioner is also permitted to file a fresh representation within one month from today. In case such a representation is filed by the petitioner, respondent-District Magistrate, Madhepura shall consider the same in the light of the relevant legal provisions and dispose of the same preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of the representation. In case he finds favour with the claim of the petitioner, he shall also pass consequential orders within the same time. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the merit of the case of the petitioner which has to be examined, considered and decided by the respondent-Collector on its own merit on the basis of the relevant documents and strictly, in the light of the legal provisions applicable in the matter. B.T (J.N. Singh, J.)