IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13471 of 2010 1. LALIT NARAYAN YADAV S/O SRI CHAMAN LAL YADAV R/O VILL BAKAHARIA, P.S.BAISI, DISTT- PURNEA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. SECRETARY, PRIMARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 5. REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION PURNEA DIVISION, PURNEA 6. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE PURNEA 7. MEMBER , DISTRICT TEACHER APPOINTMENT APPELLATE AUTHORITY PURNEA 8. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION PURNEA 9. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BAISI, DISTT- PURNEA 10. BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER BAISI, DISTT-PURNEA 11. MUKHIYA , CHANDRAGAMA GRAM PANCHAYAT WITHIN BAISI BLOCK, IN THE DISTRICT OF PURNEA 12. PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, CHANDRAGAMA GRAM PANCHAYAT WITHIN BAISI BLOCK, IN THE DISTRICT OF PURNEA 13. SHABAB ALAM S/O SAYEED AHMAD R/O VILL BAKAHARIA, P.O.KHAKSA, BLOCK & P.O.BAISI, GRAM PANCHAYAT CHANDRAGAMA, DISTT-PURNEA, AT PRESENT POSTED AS PANCHAYAT TEACHER IN PRIMARY SCHOOL, CHANDRAGAMA , DISTT-PURNEA 14. QUAISAR RAZA S/O MD. MIZAN R/O VILL & GRAM PANCHAYAT CHANDRAGAMA, P.S.BLOCK-BAISI, DISTT-PURNEA, AT PRESENT POSTED AS PANCHAYAT TEACHER IN PRIMARY SCHOOL, CHANDRAGAMA, DISTT-PURNEA ----------- - 2 - 2 11/04/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. In this writ application challenge is to the order dated 03.04.2010 contained in annexure-1 passed by the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority, Purnea in case No. 10/2009. Petitioner has challenged the order on the ground that there is abdication of power and authority by the Appellate Authority because despite the materials having been made available by the petitioner with regard to the kind of marks sheet and certificate which have been tendered by the persons who have been appointed, the Appellate Authority has said that it is not their business to go into the same and adjudicate. The other aspect is that the petitioner has been denied appointment in the sense that since the earlier aspect has not been adjudicated, petitioner did not get the benefit of appointment. So far as the claim of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra is concerned, this Court has no hesitation in agreeing with the Appellate Authority that the petitioner does not get a - 3 - right for appointment as a Shiksha Mitra because after 1.7.2006 there is no post of Shiksha Mitra available to be filled up. Petitioner is still a claimant for the post of Shiksha Mitra. So far as the first aspect of the Appellate Authority refusing to go into the verification of certificates and marks sheet, the Court in this regard can only record that if the materials as such are available, then there is no reason why the Appellate Authority would not go into it and if it is found to be so, the appointment of those persons are to be declared as illegal. The Court is in agreement with the first part of the contention of the petitioner that there is abdication on behalf of the Appellate Authority in not adjudicating the question of Farzi marks sheet and certificate. On this ground the issue is remitted back to the Appellate Authority who shall re-hear the matter and pass appropriate order after giving an opportunity to the parties. This writ application is allowed in part and the impugned order dated 03.04.2010 is quashed. However, - 4 - no direction for appointment of the petitioner as Shiksha Mitra can be given. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)