IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11561 of 2010 1. SEEMA KUMARI D/O AMAR KANT RAI R/O VILL.- NAREPUR, P.O.+P.S.- BACHHAWARA, DISTT.- BEGUSARAI, AT PRESENT WORKING AS PANCHAYAT TEACHER IN GOVT. MIDDLE SCHOOL, NAREPUR IN SITUATED WITHIN RAJ-RANI-01 OF ANCHAL BACHHWARA- -----------------------------------PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 2. DISTRICT TEACHER EMPLOYMENT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BEGUSARAI THROUGH THE CHAIRMAN 3. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BEGUSARAI 4. DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, BEGUSARAI 5. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION-CUM-DISTRICT PROGRAMME CO-ORDINATOR, BEGUSARAI 6. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, BACHHWARA, BEGUSARAI 7. BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, BACHHWARA EAST, BEGUSARAI 8. MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ-RANI-01 ANCHAL- BACHHWARA, DISTT.- BEGUSARAI 9. PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, RAJ-RANI, ANCHAL- BACHHWARA, DISTT.- BEGUSARAI 10. MINTU KUMARI D/O RAM DEO RAI R/O VILL.- NAREPUR (AYODHYA TOLA), P.O. + P.S.- BACHHAWARA, DISTT.- BEGUSARAI 11. 2ND MEMBER, DISTRICT TEACHER EMPLOYMENT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEGUSARAI---------------RESPONDENTS ----------- 2 17.3.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The impugned order is dated 15.6.2010 which is passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Begusarai. By virtue of this order the member appellate authority has categorically declared that the District Magistrate, Begusarai had no authority to appoint the petitioner on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra on 31.3.2007 as no law, rule or circular is vested that power with him. If the appointment of the petitioner was made by the District Magistrate without having any power vested with him then it has to be declared to be beyond jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is adequate material which has also been dealt with in the decision of the appellate authority showing the circumstance under which her appointment came to be made. Way back in the year 2005 itself the - 2 - finding had been arrived at. If the claim of the petitioner was given a go bye out of extraneous reason and Mintu Kumari was accommodated but nothing transpired thereafter till the District Magistrate made appointment of the petitioner on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra in place of Mintu Kumari. The Court may have sympathy with the petitioner but the law being what it is; it is difficult for the Court to reach out to the petitioner by interfering with the findings given by the appellate authority. Since the decision of the appellate authority is totally inconformity with law that the District Magistrate has no authority to make appointment on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra on 31.3.2007 specially when the post of Shiksha Mitra did not exist after 1.7.2006, whatever the background or the bona fide under which the decision has been taken by the authority who had not vested with such power is not a decision in the eye of law. Since there no is legal infirmity in the adjudication made, this Court has difficulty in interfering or declaring it to be non est. No interference is required with the decision contained in annexure- 5. This writ application is dismissed. In fact before parting the Court must compliment the member of the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority for showing his judicial acumen in the manner in which the matter has been decided. . RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)