IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.307 of 2010 Raja Ram S/O Subal Ram R/O Vill- Gopalpur, P.S. Sakra, Distt. Muzaffarpur. …………. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Deptt., Vikas Bhawan, Patna 2. The District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority Vaishali 3. The District Superintendent Of Education, Vaishali 4. The Block Education Extension Officer Patepur, Vaishali 5. The Pramukh Patepur, Block Vaishali 6. The Secretary Block Teacher Selection Committee, Patepur, Vaishali 7. The Block Development Officer Patepur, Vaishali 8. The District Education Officer, Muzaffarpur 9. The District Superintendent Of Education, Muzaffarpur 10. The Director Primary Education, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna ………….. Respondents ---------------------------------- 3. 12/12/2011 On matter being remitted back by this Court by order as contained in Annexure-8, the statutory Appellate Authority has considered the same and passed orders rejecting the case of the petitioner vide Annexure-11. The Appellate Authority has come to the finding that the petitioner was earlier appointed in a School and from there he was sent for training for one year which he completed. After that, instead of joining the same School, petitioner applied for his 2 appointment under the Rules as Prakhand Teacher suppressing the fact that he was already employed somewhere else. On verification of the certificate, it was found that the petitioner was not eligible for appointment as trained teacher as the requirement under the Rules was of two years training with Matriculation certificate which the petitioner did not had. He had only acquired one year training under the orders of the Government after his joining in the earlier School. His earlier appointment in the School was not disclosed by the petitioner. In the circumstances, the Appellate Authority has rejected the case of the petitioner. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents in support of the orders passed by the Appellate Authority. It is not disputed that for appointment as trained Prakhand Teacher under the Rules, two years training was required, which the petitioner did not had. This is also not disputed that the petitioner was earlier appointed in the School from where he had not resigned 3 earlier. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the School where petitioner was earlier appointed was closed and in case his training certificate was not accepted, he should have been appointed as untrained teacher, as he was the sole candidate of S.C. category. Petitioner should have taken this stand at the time of his appointment itself and not when it was detected that he was illegally appointed although he was not eligible for appointment as trained teacher. In the circumstances, this Court does not find any error in the order of the Appellate Authority. Therefore, it does not find any merit in this writ application. The same is accordingly dismissed. If the petitioner applies afresh for his appointment, his application may be considered on merits. Pradeep/ ( J. N. Singh,J.)