IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1094 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14958 of 2008 ====================================================== Papil Kumar Singh, s/o Janardan Pd. Singh, r/o Village+P.O. Hansa, P.S. Raniganj, Dist. Araria, Bihar. .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Bihar. 3. Director, Secondary Education, H.R.D. Department, Bihar. 4. Regional Deputy Director of Education, Purnia. 5. District Magistrate, Araria. 6. District Superintendent of Education, Araria. 7. Sub Division Officer, Araria. 8. Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Araria. 9. B.D.O., Raniganj, Dist. Araria. 10. Block Education Extension Officer, Raniganj, Dist. Araria. 11. Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Gunwanti, Block Raniganj, Dist. Araria. 12. Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Gunwanti, Block Raniganj, Dist. Araria. 13. Binay Kumar Verma, s/o Sri Suresh Lal Das, r/o Village Kamalpur, P.O. Hansa, P.S. Raniganj, Dist. Araria. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Arun Kumar No. 1, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Subhankar Sharma, A.C. to G.P. 11 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Patna High Court LPA No.1094 of 2011 (2) dt.29-07-2011 2 2 29-07-2011 Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 15th April 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in above CWJC No.14958 of 2008, the respondent no.13 has preferred the present Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The respondent no.13 Binay Kumar Verma and the appellant were two of the applicants for appointment as Panchayat Shikshak under the Gram Panchayat Gunwanti in Araria District. At the time of counseling, the appellant did not appear before the Selection Committee. In absence of the appellant, the aforesaid Binay Kumar Verma was selected and appointed as Panchayat Shikshak. Against his appointment the appellant lodged objection before the District Collector. On the objection lodged by the appellant, the matter was enquired into by the Block Development Officer. According to the report submitted by the Block Development Officer, as the appellant did not appear before the Selection Committee for counseling, although he had higher marks, he was not appointed. Contrary to the said report, the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms opined that the appellant having more marks he be appointed as Panchayat Shikshak in place of the aforesaid Binay Kumar Verma. The said order was the subject matter of challenge by the said Binay Kumar Verma in the above CWJC No. No.14958 of 2008. In the meantime, on constitution of the District Teacaher Appointment Appellate Authority, the representation made by the said Binay Kumar Verma was referred to the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority by its order dated 20th May 2009 set aside the entire selection made under the Gram Panchayat and issued a direction to prepare the merit list afresh. In the opinion of the appellate authority, the counseling was made by a Committee of Patna High Court LPA No.1094 of 2011 (2) dt.29-07-2011 3 two persons and that the counseling register was fabricated. The said order was challenged by the said Binay Kumar Verma in the pending writ petition by filing Interlocutory Application no. 3623 of 2009. The learned single Judge has confirmed the finding that the appellant did not appear for counseling. Therefore, he had no right to appointment. The order of the Appellate Authority cancelling the entire selection has been set aside by the learned single Judge. Therefore, the present Appeal. Learned Advocate Mr. Arun Kumar-I has appeared for the appellant. He has strenuously urged that the appellant did appear for counseling. However, in collusion with the writ petitioner the aforesaid Binay Kumar Verma, the Selection Committee manipulated the counseling register so as to deny the legitimate right of appointment to the appellant. He has relied upon Paragraph 9 of the instruction dated 24th July 2006 issued by the State Government in respect of certain matters relating to appointment of the teachers. The said Paragraph 9 provides for appointment of a committee under the Chairmanship of the District Magistrate for allocation of posts amongst Gram Panchayat in the District and for monitoring the selection and appointment of teachers. The said Paragraph 9 does not confer either upon the District Magistrate or any other member of the said committee power to make appointment of a teacher or the appellate power over the decision of the Selection Committee. By no stretch of imagination we can hold that the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms had the appellate power over the report made by the Block Development Officer in respect of appointment of Panchayat Shikshak. Patna High Court LPA No.1094 of 2011 (2) dt.29-07-2011 4 We see no error committed by the learned single Judge. No case for interference is made out. Appeal is dismissed in limine. M.Rahman/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)