IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2466 of 2010 1. ARCHNA KUMARI D/o Shri Anjani Kumar Srivastava of Village- Deokulia, Panchayat- Mankarwa, P.S.-Fenhara, District-East Champaran 2. Israt Perveen W/o Md. Amjad Hussain of Village-Deokulia, Panchayat-Mankarwa, P.S.-Fenhara, District- East Champaran. ------------Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Mankarwa, P.S. Fenhara, Dist-East Champaran 3. The District Magistrate, East Champaran at Motihari 4. The Block Development Officer, Fenhara, East Champaran 5. The District Teacher Employment Appellate Tribunal, East Champaran 6. Rajiv Kumar S/o Subhash Prasad Village-Deokulia Block- Fenhara, P.S. Fenhara, District-East Champaran. ------------Respondents ----------- For the Petitioners :- Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Sr. Adv. For Respondent No. 6:- Mr. Dilip Kumar Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Tiwari, Adv. For the State:- SC-I ---------------- 4. 20.7.2010 Petitioners challenge the order dated 23.1.2010 of the District Teachers Appointment Appellate, Tribunal East Champaran in Case No. 564 of 2009 where her appointment as Shiksha Mitra as made in 2005 has been set aside. Heard the parties. The private respondent no. 6 has appeared and filed an application vide I.A. No. 3568 of 2010 for vacating the interim order of stay. In my view there is no need for keeping the writ petition pending with consent of parties it is heard for disposal at this stage itself. 2 Petitioners were selected as a Shiksha Mitra in the year 2005. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma appearing for the petitioners submit that the tribunal was moved for the first time in the year 2009 by respondent no. 6. Thus his initial appointment was not challenged within 30 days in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Alok Kumar & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2009 (2) PLJR 929, this Court should hold that the tribunal acted without jurisdiction to entertain a complaint. I regret that the said decision is not applicable in the facts of the case. It is not in dispute that on petitioners’ selection respondent no. 6 had immediately protested before the Block Development Officer who was the competent authority to entertain the complaint. When the Block Development Officer did not take any action, the petitioner immediately moved the Collector who directed enquiry by the Block Development Officer. The Block Development Officer enquired into the matter and submitted report that selection of petitioners were wrong and further that respondent no. 6 was wrongly left out. The Block Development Officer then became the statutory authority in terms of Rule 18 of the Bihar Primary Panchyat Teachers (Service Condition and Appointment) 3 Rules, 2006. He was then asked to take action himself but before he could take action Rule 18 was amended and the power was given to the Bihar Teachers Appointment Appellate Tribunal. As a consequence of which the matter reached the tribunal in the year 2009. The tribunal has concurred with the findings of the Block Development Officer. Having perused the order, I have no reason to take a different view of the matter. Admittedly in appointment of petitioners, the roster was not adhered to and ignoring the same rest of the appointments were made. If rules would have been adhered to it would be respondent no. 6 who would have been appointed. Thus, clearly the appointment of petitioners were wrong and illegal. But merely because that was done without adhering to the roster clearance etc. the respondent no. 6 cannot be made to join at this late stage after five years. The post must be re-advertised and filled up in accordance with law as now vacancy arises. This should be done within two months. The writ application stands disposed of. Anand Kr. ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)