IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13000 of 2009 PIYUSH, SON OF RAJ KUMAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – CHANDI MAU, P.S. SILAO, DISTRICT –NALANDA. …. PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIATE, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIATE, PATNA. 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NALANDA. 5. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, NALANDA. 6. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, RAJGIR-1, NALANDA. 7. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SILAO, DISTRICT – NALANDA. 8. THE MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT PAWADIH, BLOCK AND P.S. SILAO, DISTRICT – NALANDA. 9. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT PAWADIH, BLOCK AND P.S. SILAO, DISTRICT – NALANDA. … RESPONDENTS. ----------- 02/ 05.01.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the State. Petitioner’s prayer is for a direction to the Mukhiya/ Panchayat Secretary as well as other members of the Appointment Committee of Gram Panchayat Pawadih, in the district of Nalanda to appoint him on the post of Panchayat Teacher, in Pawadih Gram Panchayat against the posts which fell vacant on account of termination of five Panchayat Teachers, finding that they were appointed on the basis of forged certificates. Petitioner’s name was in the list of selected candidates, beyond the sanctioned available vacancy. On - 2 - account of newly created vacancies as some of the teachers appointment were found to be made on the basis of forged certificate, the petitioner has now come within the zone of consideration, as his name figured at serial no. 3 in the general category. Counsel appearing for the State has submitted the vacancies which have been created, against that there cannot be any appointment, unless a fresh procedure is started for appointment against these posts. The process has already been started for appointment against those posts, petitioner if interested and eligible, he has liberty to apply for such posts along with other eligible candidates. His name will be considered for appointment. The petitioner, simultaneously has approached two forums for similar relief. He preferred a writ application as well as an appeal before Tribunal as provided under Rule 18 of Rules. His appeal has also been rejected by the Appellate forum during the pendency of the writ application. I do not find any merit in this application as the government’s Resolution in this regard is very much clear. For such vacancies, which have been created on account of termination or in case some of the posts remained vacant beyond 30.11.2008, on such posts appointments cannot be made from the existing panel. Rather, appointments against those posts can be made only when process for fresh - 3 - appointment is initiated. The case of the petitioner is also comes in that category. Accordingly, no direction can be issued for petitioner’s appointment on this post. This application is dismissed. Sanjeet (Mridula Mishra, J.)