IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1295 of 2009 1. SEEMA DEVI W/O SHRI SHUSHIL MANDAL VILL.- SIMARI, P.S.- BISPHI, DISTT. MADHUBANI………………PETITIONER……..APPELLANT Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, PANCHAYATI RAJ, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE MADHUBANI 3. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BISPHI, DISTT. MADHUBANI 4. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER BISPHI, DISTT.- MADHUBANI………………….RESPONDENTS……………RESPONDENTS ----------- 4. 31-Mar-2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the State and perused the judgment under appeal dated 4.3.2009 whereby writ petition preferred by the appellant bearing CWJC. No. 2908 of 2009 has been dismissed. 2. The appellant/petitioner had challenged an order dated 9.2.2009 passed by the District Magistrate, Madhubani by which he had cancelled the panel recommended by the Selection Committee and restrained the petitioner/appellant to chair the meetings which will be held for the purpose of counseling and preparing the panel of selected candidates. 3. The writ Court has noted that such action was required to be taken by the District Magistrate because the petitioner as a Pramukh of the Panchayat Samiti chaired 2 the Selection Committee meetings although she was also a candidate and had applied for selection as a Block Teacher. In view of such facts, the writ Court declined to interfere with the order of the District Magistrate and it further observed at page 12 of the judgment under appeal that the petitioner would not be permitted to chair the meeting of the Selection Committee at least for a period of one year, i.e., till February, 2010. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that even if the writ Court decided to dismiss the writ petition on merits, it could not have extended the ambit and scope of the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate which restrained the appellant from chairing the Selection Committee meetings. 5. It is not clear whether the selection process for the selection of Block Teachers is concluded or not. If it has not concluded, then voluntarily the appellant/petitioner must refrain from chairing of this meeting of the Selection Committee which should be done by any other person as directed by the District Magistrate. For other purpose, she may function as Pramukh as per law. In case, Selection 3 process relating to the old transaction is completed then there would be no restriction on the working of appellant as Pramukh and chairing the Selection Committee relating to other transactions for which the appellant was not an applicant. 6. We would not like to deal with the grievance of the appellant that the writ Court should not have restrained the petitioner from chairing the meeting from the Selection Committee for a period of one year because that period has already expired. 7. With the aforesaid clarification and observation, the appeal is disposed of. perwez (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Gopal Prasad, J.)