IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13155 of 2010 1. AZRA PARWEEN W/O ASHARAFUDDIN R/O VILL.- BHAWANANDPUR, P.S.- BIRPUR, DISTT.- BEGUSARAI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. MUKHIA, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ BHAVANANDPUR PERKHUND BIRPUR, DISTT.- BEGUSARAI 3. SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ BHAVANANDPUR PERKHAND BIRPUR, DISTT.- BEGUSARAI 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BEGUSARAI 5. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, BEGUSARAI 6. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, BIRPUR, DISTT.- BEGUSARAI 7. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER BIRPUR PERKHAND, DISTT.- BEGUSARAI 8. ANURADHA KUMARI W/O BHAGAT SINGH R/O VILL.- PANAPUR, P.S.- BIRPUR, DISTT.- BEGUSARAI ----------- 02. 07.04.2011 Petitioner has been compelled to file the present writ application challenging Annexure-6 because the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Begusarai, has rejected the appeal of the petitioner along with that of one Anuradha Kumari vide its order dated 17.7.2010. The fall-out of such a decision is that the earlier order of removal of the petitioner from the post of a Panchayat teacher was found to be in order and the tribunal has refused to interfere with such a decision in the background or the ambit of the dispute which was deeply gone into by the Member. The tribunal has also refused to pass any direction in favour of Anuradha Kumari for her appointment. There is no dispute on the fact that the petitioner was 2 initially engaged as a Panchayat Shiksha Mitra and thereafrter became a Panchayat teacher when 2006 Rules came into play. But such appointment did not come to rest because many a complaints were made in the manner in which selection was effected by the Gram Panchayat or the functionaries. Enquiries were held by various authorities or limbs of the State and the matter also traveled to the High Court which relegated the matter to the appellate authority for appropriate adjudication on the right or claim of the petitioner. All the persons who had interest in adjudication of the two appeals, both petitioner and Anuradha Kumari were heard. Records perused and the findings given. Some of the findings which are too glaring to be ignored is that the petitioner was appointed as a general teacher despite having a degree of Maulvi when admittedly people with such degrees could only be appointed as a Urdu teacher but there was no post of a Urdu teacher in the concerned school nor are there any students to be taught Urdu. Not only this it has also emerged that the appointment letter issued in favour of the petitioner was issued at the level of the Mukhiya after forging the signature of the Panchayat Secretary and therefore the appointment of the petitioner per se seems to be bad, if not a fraud on the system. There are other findings as well which have been given by the appellate authority. Sum essence of the same is that the entry of the petitioner into 3 service was because of rampant illegal activities of the Mukhiya and large scale irregularities committed in such appointment in the Panchayat concerned. If the petitioner was beneficiary and that too without having a requisite qualification for appointment as a general teacher and further without any vacancy being available, obviously the appointment will have to be interfered with and her removal came to be justified by the appellate authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision in the case of Alok Kumar and others v. State of Bihar & others, 2009 (2) PLJR 929. In this case learned single Judge had occasion to hold that appointment made as a Panchayat Shiksha Mitra and thereafter absorbed as a Panchayat teacher cannot be permitted to be challenged at a belated stage as certain right has accrued in favour of such appointee. How much does such a decision help in the present case is not understood by this Court because there is a long history to this litigation and petitioner had already been removed earlier by the decision taken by the authorities. It is not that for the first time the issue of removal of the petitioner was being raised before the appellate authority. In fact the petitioner herself was before the appellate authority and it is not a case that at the instance of any other interested person the said adjudication has come to be made. In the totality what has been extracted from the 4 findings of the appellate authority, this Court is constrained to record that the decision of the appellate authority does not require any interference whatsoever as no illegality emerges in such a decision. Writ has no merit. It is dismissed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)