IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9695 of 2010 1. SATRUGHAN KUMAR, S/O SRI RAM NARESH MAHTO, R/O VILLAGE BANDWAR , BRAHAMPURA TOLA, P.S. NIMA CHANDPURA, DISTRICT- BEGUSARAI (BIHAR). Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY CUM COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT,GOVT. OF BIHAR,PATNA. 2. THE DIRECTOR ,PRIMARY EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT,GOVT. OF BIHAR,PATNA. 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,BEGUSARAI. 5. THE DISTRICT TEACHERS APPOINTMENT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,BEGUSARAI. 6. THE MEMBER,THE DISTRICT TEACHERS APPOINTMENT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,BEGUSARAI. 7. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION,BEGUSARAI. 8. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER,BEGUSARAI. 9. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER,BEGUSARAI. null null 10. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,BEGUSARAI. 11. THE MUKHIA, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, BANDWAR, BEGUSARAI. 12. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY,GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, BANDWAR, BEGUSARAI. 13. THE HEADMASTER, PRIMARY SCHOOL ,KUNJARTOLI, BANDWAR, BEGUSARAI. 14. MD.SUFIAN ALAM, S/O MD. SULTAN ALAM, R/O VILLAGE BANDWAR, P.S. NIMA CHANDPURA, DISTRICT- BEGUSARAI. 15. SUNIL KUMAR, S/O SRI GANGA PRASAD DAS, R/O VILLAGE JINEDPUR, P.S. NIMA CHANDPURA, DISTRICT- BEGUSARAI. ----------- 6 21/04/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the private respondents and learned counsel - 2 - for the State. A frontal attack was made on the reasoning given by the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority, Begusarai which is the impugned order contained annexure 12 to this writ application that the finding recorded by the Appellate Authority that addition of vocational marks in the merit list is contrary to the Circular and direction of the Human Resources Development Department is erroneous per se. He submits that there does not exist any circular of the kind and, therefore, the direction issued by the Appellate Authority to deduct such marks from the merit list and thereby creating a fresh merit list based on which right accrues in favour of Md. Sufyan is wrong. A counter affidavit on behalf of the State has been filed where a categorical statement has been made that vocational marks or extra subject marks cannot be added for creating merit list and on that account the continuation of the petitioner, therefore, cannot be sustained. Next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that if a mistake has been made by the - 3 - Panchayat in preparation of the merit list in such a fashion, then the entire panel is to be scrapped. In this regard the Court can only record that the issue of appointment of the petitioner on the post at the cost of other persons having more marks but having been denied the benefit because of wrong addition of marks in favour of the petitioner, contrary to the direction of the Ministry of Human Resources Development Department, if on re-working on deduction of vocational marks, the petitioner does not remain in the merit list on the basis of which he has got appointment, he has no right to remain on that post. To that extent, the Appellate Authority has not committed any error and the challenge made by the petitioner seems to be misplaced, not based on actual state of affair. This writ application, therefore, is dismissed as no illegality as such emerges from the reasoning given by the Appellate Authority. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)