IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.616 of 2010 1. SHASHI KUMARI SINHA W/O SRI RAMKRIT SINGH R/O VILLAGE - MADHOPUR, P.O - LAKHAWAR, P.S - GHOSI IN THE DISTRICT OF JEHANABAD. -------- Appellant Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE COLLECTOR, JEHANABAD. 5. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, JEHANABAD. 6. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, KAKO BLOCK, DISTRICT- JEHANABAD. 7. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER ,KAKO BLOCK, DISTRICT- JEHANABAD. 8. THE MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT BADHAUNA UNDER KAKO BLOCK, DISTRICT- JEHANABAD. 9. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT BADHAUNA UNDER KAKO BLOCK, DISTRICT- JEHANABAD. 10. THE ZILA SHIKSHAK NIYOJAN APILIYA PRADHIKAR, JEHANABAD THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, DISTRICT - JEHANABAD. 11. HARENDRA CHANDRA DUTTA S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER MEMBER, ZILA SHIKSHAK NIYOJAN APPELEYE PRADHIKAR, JEHANABAD. 12. SHYAMA RANI W/O RAM YIJAY KUMAR SINGH, R/O VILLAGE - BADHAUNA, P.O.- LAKHAWAR, P.S - GHOSI, DISTRICT – JEHANABAD, THROUGH PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT BADHAUNA BLOCK, KAKO, DISTRICT JEHANABAD. ---------- Respondents ----------- For the Appellant :- Mr. Sunil Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent :- Mr. Shashi Kant Singh, AC to GA6 ---------- 2 05.04.2010 I.A. No. 3153 of 2010 Having heard learned counsel for the appellant 2 writ petitioner as also learned counsel for the State and after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances made in this application, the delay of 97 days in filing of this appeal is hereby condoned. I.A. No. 3153 of 2010 is accordingly allowed. LPA No. 616 of 2010 In view of the fact that we have condoned the delay in filing of this appeal, we are also inclined to take up the hearing of this appeal for its disposal on merits at the stage of admission itself. We have accordingly heard counsel for the parties at length. The solitary issue involved in the writ application filed by the appellant writ petitioner while questioning the appointment of the respondent no.12 on the post of Panchayat Teacher was whether such selection and appointment of the respondent no.12 in preference to the appellant writ petitioner was justified ?. It has to be noted that such selection was made in the year 2006-07 and on the basis of the panel made wherein the respondent no.12 had ranked first on the basis of her marks, she was appointed leaving the appellant writ 3 petitioner who on the basis of marks was placed at serial no.2 of the panel list. In fact it would appear that long after the selection/appointment of the respondent no.12, the appellant writ petitioner had approached the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Jehanabad, a body constituted to look into the anomalies in selection/appointment on the post of Panchayat Teacher, which on the basis of its enquiry and the report of the Block Education Extension Officer, had found the allegation made by the appellant writ petitioner to be baseless by recording that she was at serial no.2 of the panel whereas the person at serial no.1 of the panel having higher marks was appointed. It was this order of the appellate authority dated 8.4.2009 which was assailed in the writ petition filed by the appellant writ petitioner on 28.8.2009, which has been dismissed by the learned single Judge by recording that the appellant writ petitioner had not filed her petition before the appellate authority within the prescribed period and therefore, there was no scope for interfering with the order of the appellate authority. 4 Learned counsel for the appellant writ petitioner, however, had tried to insist that even if the order of the Appellate authority as with regard to the petitioner being at serial no.2 of the panel is correct, she was still entitled to be considered for such appointment because the respondent no.12 had subsequently left the post of Panchayat Teacher. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that even Mukhia of the Gram Panchayat had approached the appellate authority by way of seeking its approval to fill up the vacancy of the post of Panchayt Teacher by appointment of appellant writ petitioner but the same was also wrongly rejected by the appellate authority by its order dated 26.6.2009 on a wholly irrelevant ground. Counsel, therefore, submitted that since the name of the petitioner was admittedly at serial no.2 in the panel for the first phase of appointment of Panchayat Teacher undertaken in the year 2006, she could still be appointed on the post in question on account of the non- availability of respondent no.12, the first name in the Panel. We have carefully looked into the records 5 including the scheme of such appointment from which it becomes clear that if in the first phase of appointment of Panchayat Teacher any vacancy remained unfilled, the same had to be filled up by undergoing fresh process of selection. Admittedly, in this case, the selection and appointment of respondent no.12 was made on the basis of her having higher marks (66.5%) as against the appellant writ petitioner having 65.44% and therefore, the transaction of the first phase of appointment on the solitary post of Panchyat Teacher in the Badhauna Block of Kako, Jehanabad had come to an end. As per the decision of the State Government, any subsequent vacancy of the first phase of appointment of 2006 was to be filled up by way of fresh process of appointment and that is how, the appellate authority had refused the request of the Mukhia of the Badhauna Gram Panchayat with a copy to the appellant writ petitioner. This aspect of the matter in fact has also been gone into by the learned single Judge who has recorded that as per the policy decision of the Government, posts of appointment of the first phase which became vacant could 6 be filled only by undertaking fresh process of appointment in the second phase of Panchayat Teachers appointment, under 2008 Rules. We therefore fully agree with the said findings and the reasoning recorded by the learned single judge, inasmuch as, once the appointment in the first phase was completed by way of selection and appointment of respondent no.12 on the post of Panchayat Teacher, the life of the panel had automatically come to an end and the same could not be utilized for making appointment in the year 2009 when the State Government had already undertaken the fresh process of selection as per the circular issued by the competent authority of the Human Resources Development Department in its letter no. 496 dated 16.4.2009. We are also not impressed with the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent no.12 in fact had secured lesser marks to the appellant writ petitioner and was wrongly placed at serial no.1. In fact, no such case to this effect was made by the appellant writ petitioner before the appellate authority in 7 her wholly belated complaint filed before the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority. Thus, once the appellant writ petitioner had not raised such issue before the competent authority in terms of the Rules relating to selection and appointment of Panchayat Teacher, she cannot be allowed to raise them for the first time in the writ petition and/or consequential appeal. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. There would be, however, no order as to costs. Rishi (Dipak Misra, CJ.) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)