IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1939 of 2008 Rajesh Kumar, Son of Akhileshwar Singh, Resident of village Khori Paker, Post Office Paltuhata, Police Station Jamo, District Siwan…………………………………………………………………………Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate, Siwan 3. The District Superintendent of Education, Siwan 4. The Block Development Officer, Hussainganj, Siwan 5. The Block Education Extension Officer, Husssainganj, Siwan 6. The Mukhiya, Chhata Bakhtiyar Gram Panchayat, Hussainganj Block, Siwan 7. The Panchayat Secretary, Chhata Bakhtiyar Gram Panchayat, Hussainganj Block, Siwan…………………………………………………………..……..Respondents ----------- 2 27.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. It is not disputed that the petitioner has been appointed as Panchayat Teacher. The sole grievance of the petitioner is that though other candidates, who were selected in the process, were allowed to join with effect from 18.12.2006, petitioner was kept waiting for the same without any rhyme or reason and on the false ground that his certificates were being verified. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in response to a request of 2 the Block Development Officer, Hussainganj, petitioner obtained second copy of the certificates from the Bihar School Examination Board and produced the same and, upon being satisfied with the same, Block Development Officer issued memo no. 38 dated 11.01.2007 directing Panchayat Secretary to appoint the petitioner. Panchayat Secretary did not obey the same. Therefore, Block Development Officer issued another memo no.50 dated 16.01.2007 giving warning to the Panchayat Secretary that if he does not accept the joining of the petitioner, higher authorities will be informed. It appears that the petitioner approached the District Magistrate and ultimately, petitioner received his appointment letter dated 22.03.2007, on 12.05.2007 as contained in Annexure-5, as a consequence of which he joined his post. Now petitioner claims that his services should be notionally counted with effect from 18.12.2006 so as to make him entitled for other benefits, as may accrue to him, under law, at par with other appointees of 3 the process. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Block Development Officer, in which it is stated that appointment of the petitioner was delayed due to verification of the certificate. However, the statement of the petitioner in paragraph 9 of the writ application that the B.D.O., as far back as on 11.01.2007, had issued directions to the Panchayat Secretary to appoint the petitioner which shows that he was satisfied with the genuineness of the certificate, has not been controverted in the counter affidavit. If that position is correct then obviously the delay in appointment of the petitioner was not due to verification of the certificate. However, since this requires a proper enquiry, this Court feels it appropriate for the petitioner to file a representation before the District Magistrate, Siwan pointing out that for no valid reasons, his appointment was delayed and, therefore, he should get the benefits of appointment from the earlier date notionally, for other benefits in future. 4 If such a representation is filed within one month from today, the District Magistrate, Siwan shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law preferably within a period of two months thereafter after getting it enquired as to what was the actual reason for delay in appointment of the petitioner. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)