IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15825 of 2009 1. SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH S/O SURESH PRASAD SINGH R/OVILL ASHURAR, P.O. HARIPUR, P.S. ALAULI, DISTT- KHAGARIA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT TEACHERS APPOINTMENT APPELLANT AUTHORITY KHAGARIA 4. THE DIRECTOR , PRIMARY EDUCATION GOVT.OF BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION KHAGARIA 6. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER ALAULI, KHAGARIA 7. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ null SIMRAHA, ALAULI, KHAGARIA 8. ASHOK KUMAR SINGH S/O DEO NANDAN PD. SINGH R/OVILL MAZAUNA, P.S.HARIPUR, P.S.ALAULI, DISTT- KHAGARIA, THE THEN MUKHIYA OF PANCHAYAT RAJ , SIMRAHA, ALAULI, KHAGARIA 9. JAY SHANKAR PRAASAD S/OLATE BINDESHWARI YADAV R/OVILL BARI SIMRAHA, PRESENTLY POSTED AS PANCHAYAT TEACHER , GOVT. MIDDLE SCHOOL , SIMRAHA ALAULI, DISTT- KHAGARIA ----------- 2 8.3.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the State. Petitioner has challenged the order passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal, Khagaria dated 8.10.2009 on the ground that while rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner the Tribunal has not considered the report submitted by Three Men Committee dated 6.11.2007, according to which, except appointment of Santosh Kumar Singh, appointment of all other persons including Yogendra 2 Kumar and Jai Shankar Prasad was in violation of the roster point. It seems that the petitioner is not much interested so far his own appointment is concerned, as in the light of the Government Resolution he cannot be appointed but his interest is that the respondent No.9, whose termination has not been directed by the Tribunal, should not remain in service. I do not find any reason to interfere in the matter. In case Three Men Committee is there, it is for the authority to decide, whether on the basis of the report of B.D.O., persons whose appointments is said to be against the reservation’s roster, should be retained or should be terminated. So far as petitioner is concerned, he has no valid cause of action to challenge the appointment of respondent no.9. This application is dismissed. (Mridula Mishra,J.) A.Kumar