IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.W.J.C. No.7378 of 2009 Rekha Singh, wife of Shri Vinod Kumar Singh, Technical Assistant (Ex Junior Farm Superintendent) Residing at house no. C1/11, T.C.A. Dholi, Muzaffarpur .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. The Director, Primary Education, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 4. The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur 5. The District Superintendent of Education, Muzaffarpur 6. Block Education Extension Officer, Muroul Block, Muzaffarpur 7. The Member, District Level Teacher Selection Appellate Tribunal, Muzaffarpur 8. Mukhiya, Panchayat Sadikpur, Muroul, Dholi Agriculture College district Muzaffarpur 9. Panchayat Secretary, Muroul Panchayat Sadikpur, Muroul district Muzaffarpur .. Respondents **** /2/ 03.07.2009 Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner has filed this application for quashing the order, dated 09.06.2009, passed by the Member, District Level Teacher Selection Appellate Tribunal Muzaffarpur. By the impugned order respondent no. 7 has cancelled the entire selection of Panchayat Teacher held in Sadikpur Muroul Panchayat, Muroul Block, Muzaffarpur, and has directed the concerned authorities to hold afresh selection process for 2 selection of candidates. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed on her complaint, persons having higher marks did not make any complaint regarding appointment of Renu Kumari, having lesser mark. It is also submitted that Savita Kumari, who has got highest mark has already been appointed at some other place. Minaxi Suman, Sunita Kumari and Anju Kumari, who have got higher marks though not appointed any where, did not file any complaint. This shows that they are not at all interested in their appointment. In this circumstance, the direction of respondent no. 7 to conduct the selection afresh is not proper selection. Only the petitioner, who had a complaint, was not noticed earlier to participate in the selection process, should have been given opportunity to participate in the selection. 3. I do not find much substance in the submission made by the petitioner’s counsel. Once selection and appointment is found to be illegal in that case an opportunity is required to be given to all though earlier participated in the selection process. In this case, admittedly, persons having higher marks were not appointed and the person having lesser mark have been appointed though they did not make any complaint and fresh selection is going to be started, they are 3 bound to be noticed to participate. 4. Considering all these facts, I do not find any merit in this application. Accordingly, it is disposed off. Cp:2/S.A. (Mridula Mishra, J.)