IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10845 of 2007 JAI PRAKASH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 04.07.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner claims to be an applicant for the post of Panchayat Shikshak in the district of Muzaffarpur under an advertisement of 2004. Learned counsel fairly submits that reference to the year 2005 in the context of the advertisement in paragraph 4 is an error. The petitioner, in fact, applied on 8.10.2004. It is his case that he was better qualified and had higher marks than respondent no. 9. Notwithstanding the same Respondent no. 9 came to be selected. That a communication has been issued by the Block Education Extension Officer, Sahebganj, Muzaffarpur to the District Superintendent of Education, Muzaffarpur on 14.8.2007 after an alleged enquiry that respondent no. 9 has been appointed in preference to the petitioner wrongly and that the petitioner had higher marks. Learned counsel for the State prays for adjournment to file counter affidavit. The writ petition raises purely question of facts based on the criteria for selection laid down. An enquiry is alleged to have been held by the authorities and certain conclusions have been arrived at. If the enquiry report dated 14.3.2007 appended at Annexure-5 to the writ petition is a fact and genuine all that is required to be done is to implement the administrative decision based on facts. No questions of - 2 - law are involved at this stage requiring adjudication by the Court. What is essentially an administrative matter is sought to be cast on the Court. The Court refuses to accept the administrators’ burden unless the administrators so request. The writ application is disposed with directions to the Respondents to proceed appropriately in accordance with law in context of the enquiry report dated 14.3.2007. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)