IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16010 of 2009 RANJEET KUMAR S/O RAMESH KUMAR R/O VILL.- UCHLA (SOUTH BHANDARTAL), P.S.- BARARI, DISTT.- KATIHAR. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPTT., PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE COLLECTOR, KATIHAR 5. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, KATIHAR 6. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, BARARI, DISTT.- KATIHAR 7. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENTION OFFICER, BARARI, KATIHAR 8. SECRETARY, SOUTH BHANDARTAL PANCHAYAT, BARARI BLOCK, KATIHAR 9. MUKHIYA, SOUTH BHANDARTAL PANCHAYAT, BARARI BLOCK, KATIHAR 10. BIBI ANJANA KHATOON D/O BADRUDDIN R/O VILL.- UCHLA, P.S.- BARARI, DISTT.- KATIHAR 11. KANCHAN KUMARI D/O YOGESH PRASAD MANDAL R/O VILL.- UCHLA, MIRKOL, P.S.- BARARI, DISTT.- KATIHAR 12. MEMBER, ZILA SHIKSHAK NYOGEN, APPELIYA PRADHIKAR, KATIHAR P.S. AND DISTT.- KATIHAR. ----------- 03 05.08.2010 The petitioner challenges the order of the District Primary Teacher Appointment Appellate Authority, Katihar as passed in Appeal Case No.1554 of 2009, being order dated 28.08.2009. By the said order, the Tribunal has directed reinstatement of respondent nos.10 & 11, being Bibi Anjana Khatoon and Kanchan Kumari, apart from appointing Jaswant Kaur against whom petitioner has no grievance. Petitioner states that the Tribunal erred in ordering their reinstatement because they were rightly terminated pursuant to the orders of the Lokayukt, Bihar. Private-respondents have appeared and have contested on the locus of the petitioner to challenge the order of - 2 - the Tribunal. They have pointed out that the private-respondent were appointed as Shiksha Mitras in the year 2005. Their appointments were not challenged. Their appointments were extended and ultimately they were absorbed as Panchayat Teachers in the year 2006. In the year 2008, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court challenging the appointment procedure as a whole, which appointments, as noticed above, was made on 12.05.2005. This Court in C.W.J.C. No.6621 of 2008 has refused to interfere and petitioner’s writ petition was dismissed on 29.04.2008 on the ground of delay and laches. Petitioner then moved the Tribunal. The Tribunal did not interfere in the matter and petitioner’s appeal being Appeal No.1013 of 2009 was dismissed. In the mean time, petitioner and his like had moved the Lokayukt, Bihar. Before the Lokayukt, Queries were being made in course whereof acting as if the Lokayut had directed the private-respondents’ appointments were terminated without even notice to them. The private-respondents accordingly moved the Tribunal and the Tribunal held that the Lokayukt never ordered the termination of private- respondents and termination of private-respondent was made without following the procedure, as such, the Tribunal ordered for reinstatement. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Tribunal, as contained in Anneuxre-1, in this writ petition. In my view, the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge that order. Petitioner had approached this Court and failed. Petitioner had moved the Tribunal and failed. So far as petitioner was concerned, the chapter is closed. The order of the Tribunal which the petitioner - 3 - seeks to impugn does not take away any of petitioner’s right nor does it affect the petitioner. The Tribunal has held that the respondents were illegally/wrongly removed and, as such, should be reinstated. That cannot give cause of action to the petitioner to impugn the order of the Tribunal, even otherwise this Court is of the view that the order of the Tribunal suffers from legal infirmity and requires no consideration. Accordingly, the writ application is dismissed. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)