IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 7215 of 2010 1. PUNAM KUMARI, D/O RAM NARESH MATHO, R/O VILLAGE - NAYA TOLA HARRKH, P.O. - SUHIRD NAGAR, P.S.- TOWN , BEGUSARAI, DISTRICT- BEGUSARAI. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, BIHAR PATNA. 2. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BEGUSARAI. 4. THE DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, BEGUSARAI. 5. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, BEGUSARAI. 6. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, BEGUSARAI. 7. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BLOCK BEGUSARAI, DISTRICT-BEGUSARAI. 8. BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, BLOCK- BEGUSARAI, DISTRICT- BEGUSARAI. 9. PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ PANHASS, BLOCK-BEGUSARAI, DISTRICT-BEGUSARAI. 10. MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ PANHASS, BLOCK- BEGUSARAI, DISTRICT- BEGUSARAI. 11. DISTRICT TEACHER EMPLOYMENT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEGUSARAI THROUGH MEMBER. 12. SINDHU KUMARI, W/O HEMANT KUMAR,D/O BANWARI SAH, R/O VILLAGE-JINADPUR, P.O.- RAJAURA,P.S.- MUFFASIL BEGUSARAI, DISTRICT- BEGUSARAI,DISTRICT-BEGUSARAI. ----------- 5 23.09.2010 The petitioner challenges the order of the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Tribunal, Begusarai as passed in Appeal No 56 of 2008 at the instance of respondent No 12 who happened to be aspirant for the post of Panchayat Teacher. The case has chequered history. The appointment of petitioner was made in November, 2006. Respondent No 12 failed to get the appointment. Generalised petitions were filed before the Collector who set aside all the appointments and directed for recounselling. Petitioner challenged the order of the Collector in a writ petition which is pending. However, petitioner participated in the second counselling as well. Here, she was once again selected and reappointed 2 which appointment she has accepted. This selection was then challenged by respondent No 12 before the Tribunal. The challenge was, inter alia, on the ground that though on coming to know of recounselling, respondent No 12 went there, she was not allowed nor she was considered for recounselling, the second time. Initially, the stand of the petitioner was that she did not turn up for counselling but the appellate order and the records speak otherwise. The counselling register clearly shows that respondent No 12 did appear in the counselling but her name was not in the merit list earlier prepared. That establishes that she did present herself for counselling but was debarred and that too on a ground which is none est. Records further disclose that counselling notice was not given to all persons qualified. There is a protest by the Panchayat Secretary against the conduct of M P (Mukhiya Pati). Taking into account these things, the Tribunal has set aside the order of petitioner’s selection but has noted that the Department of Human Resources has ordered that fresh recruitment should not be made or fresh recruitment process should not be undertaken after 2007 without permission of the Department. Respondent No 12 has appeared and contested the matter before this Court. Having considered the matter, in view of the facts as noticed above, I have no manner of doubt that the order of the Appellate Tribunal requires no interference. So far as the first counselling is concerned, which was set aside by the Collector, this Court would not like to prejudge the issue inasmuch as the writ petition is pending, though it would be a matter to be considered whether having participated in the second counselling and accepted the appointment thereto, would the 3 challenge to the first counselling survives? However, so far as second counselling is concerned, it must be noted that all eligible people were not allowed to participate. That vitiates the counselling and, hence, the selection. It is for this reason that I am not persuaded to finally interfere in the matter. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed at this stage itself. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)