IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7617 of 2008 RANA PRATAP MANDAL Son of Dev Narayan Mandal, resident of village- Govindpur, P.S. Jadiya, District- Supaul 2. Rajesh Kumar son of Hari Lal Singh, resident of village Bajupatti, P.S. Bhargama, District Araria. 3. Md. Manzoor Ahmad son of Md. Suleman, resident of village- Chandnighasi Tola, P.S. Bhargama, District. Araria. 4. Punam Kumari D/o Hari Lal Singh, resident of village-Bajupatti, P.S. Bhargama, District Araria. 5. Prakash Paswan son of Maheshwari Paswan, resident of village- Tapra, Birnagar, P.S. Bhargama, Dist. Araria. 6. Suresh Kumar Yadav son of Bindeshwari Yadav, resident of village Shekhpura, P.S. Bhargama, District Araria. 7. Md. Islam son of Late Md. Gafoor. Resident of village Dhaneshwari, P.S. Bhargama, District- Araria 8. Md. Mustaque son of Abdul Shakur, resident of village- Dhaneshwari, P.S. Bhargama, Distt. Araria. 9. Pratima Kumari D/o Badri Pd. Mandal, resident of village- Dhaneshwari, P.S. Bhargama, District, Araria. 10. Chandni Kumari D/o Shiwendra Prasad, resident of village- Dhaneshwari, P.S. Bhargama, District- Araria. 11. Indu Kumari D/o Sudha Deo Srivastava, resident of village- Dhaneshwari, P.S. Bhargama, Distt. Araria; 12. Uma Kumari D/o Mahendra Chandra Das, resident of village Chandni Kathwa P.S. Mofasil Purnea, Dist. Araria. 13. Nudrat Jamil son of Jamil Akhatar, P.S. Bhargama, Dist. Araira. 14. Md. Asjad son of Abdus Samed, resident of village- Dhaneshwari, P.S. Bhargama, Distt. Araria. 15. Sushil Kumar Ram son of Ram Prasad Ram resident of village- Raghunathpur, Uttar, P.S. Bhargama, Distt. Araria. 16. Rekha Kumari D/o Sukdeo Ram resident of village- Khutha Baijnathpur, P.S. Raniganj, District- Araria... Petitioners. Versus 1 THE STATE OF BIHAR through District Magistrate, Araria. 2 Additional District Magistrate, District Araria. 3 Sub-divisional Officer, Araria. 4 B.D.O. Bhargama,P.S. Bhargama,Distt. Araria. 5 Block Education Extension Officer,Bhargama, District-Araria. 6 Mukhia Gram panchayat Dhaneshwari,(Bargama), Araria. 7 Gram Panchayat Secretary Dhaneshwari, District-Araria ................................... Respondents. ----------- Advocate for the petitioners:- 1. Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma:- Sr.Advocate 2. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Advocate Advocate for the State Mr. Pravin Kumar Verma,J.C. to S.C.X - 2 - 3 27-11-2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. By the impugned order dated 20.2.2008 (Annexure-2) the Block Development Officer-cum- Appellate Authority for Panchayat teachers, Bhargama, in the district of Araria has looked into complaints filed by several persons alleging illegality/ irregularity in the process of selection or counseling for appointment of Panchayat teachers in Gram Panchayat Dhaneshwari. On a perusal of the impugned order this court finds that in order to verify the allegations made by the complainants the original registers and documents were called for and notice was also issued to appointed teachers like the petitioners and out of them 11 Panchayat teachers appeared. After taking all the precautionary steps to ensure fairness in the procedure, by the impugned order the Block Development Officer has come to a finding that counseling register appears to have been prepared illegally and signatures of several persons do not appear to be taken in the counseling register. On such finding he has held that the entire selection process has to be set aside so that for the Panchayat in question fresh counseling may be conducted at the Block Headquarter in accordance with law. The effect of the impugned order is to protect the genuine and meritorious candidates and they are bound to be selected even in fresh counseling. This court finds that an effective representation of the Panchayat teachers was made in course of enquiry because pursuant - 3 - Naresh................ to notice 11persons appeared. Hence, the enquiry cannot be said to be ex-parte. In the facts of the case the allegations did not warrant individual enquiry because the allegations appear to be against the selection process or process of counseling itself. Hence, this court finds no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order. It is within the power given to B.D.O. under Rule 18 of the Rules. The effect of the impugned order is only to get the counseling done afresh in a fair manner. This shall not affect the right of genuine and meritorious candidates who may include the petitionersalso. In such facts and circumstances this court is not .inclined to interfere. The writ petition is dismissed. It is expected that the fresh counseling in accordance with law shall be done expeditiously without any delay. ( Shiva Kirti Singh,J)