IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9348 of 2008 Binay Kumar Jha, son of Late Jagannath Jha, resident of village Wazitpur, P.S. Kamtaul, District- Darbhanga. Versus 1.The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, patna 2.The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3.The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Darbhanga 4.The District Superintendent of Education-cum- District Programme Coordinator, Bihar Education Project, Madhubani 5.The District Magistrate-cum-Chairman, Bihar Education Project, Madhubani 6.The Additional Collector, Land Ceiling-cum- Observer, Pandaul Block Teacher’s Employment Committee, Madhubani 7.Prakhand Pramukh-cum-Chairman, Block Teacher’s Employment Committee, Pandaul, District Madhubani 8.The Block Education Extension Officer, Pandaul, District- Madhubani. …………. Respondents ---------------------------------- 3. 29/08/2011 Petitioner has filed this writ application for a direction to the respondents to consider his case for appointment as Block Teacher (Prakhand Shikshak) and appoint him as such. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that, in 2007, a newspaper communiqué was issued in the District of Madhubani by the Collector- cum-Chairman of the Project directing all the Employment Committees to take up preparation of panels for appointment of teachers at Panchayat as well as block 2 level. They were directed to prepare panels and put them on the notice board on 4.10.2007. Date of counseling of candidates was fixed for 11th and 12th October. As petitioner had already applied for appointment as Block Teacher, he was expecting that his name shall be included in the panel. However, on the date of counseling he did not find his name in the panel and found the name of persons with less percentage of marks in the panel. Hence, he filed his objection. The Block Education Extension Officer considered his representation, and finding substance in it, sought guidelines from the D.S.E.-cum- District Programme Co-ordinator vide his letter dated 27.11.2007 (Annexure-8) and also kept one post vacant pending decision in the matter. As the matter got delayed, petitioner represented the District Magistrate, vide Annexure-9. Thereafter, a meeting of the Block Teachers’ Employment Committee was held on 26.12.2007 in which the case of the petitioner was also considered and, in view of rival claims of two candidates, it was resolved to seek 3 guidelines. Hence, proceeding of the Committee was forwarded by the Prakhand Pramukh-cum-Chairman of the Committee to the D.S.E.-cum-District Programme Co- ordinator through his letter dated 28.1.2008, vide Annexure-10. No decision having been taken by the respondents since then in the mater, petitioner has filed this writ application. This writ application was filed on 1.7.2008, with service of two copies of the same in the office of the learned Advocate General. However, till today no counter affidavit has been filed in the case. From the facts emerging from the records, it appears that the case of the petitioner is still pending for consideration with the respondents and nothing has been brought on record to show that a final decision has been taken, either way, in that respect. In the circumstances, this writ application is disposed of with a direction to the respondent District programme Co- ordinator, to see to it that a final decision is taken in the matter of the 4 petitioner, if not already taken, positively within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, as a post has been kept vacant for such decision, and communicate the same to the petitioner. It goes without saying that, if the decision goes against the petitioner, he will be at liberty to challenge the same before the Appellate Authority, constituted under the Rules, in accordance with law. Pradeep/ ( J. N. Singh,J.)