IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1573 of 2010 1. PRAMOD PASWAN S/O SHRI SHANKAR PASWAN R/O VILL.- BISHNUPURWA, P.O.- GAUNAHA, P.S.- SHAHODRA(SUBHADRA), DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR WEST CHAMPARAN, BETTIAH 3. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER GAUNAHA, WEST CHAMPARAN 4. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER GAUNAHA, WEST CHAMPARAN 5. THE MUKHIYA GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ DHAMAURA, WEST CHAMPARAN 6. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ DHAMAURA, WEST CHAMPARAN 7. SRI RAJESHWAR KUMAR S/O SRI KAPILDEO RAM R/O VILL.- LAGUANAHA, P.O.- LAGUNAHA, P.S.- SHAHODRA, DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN 8. THE MEMBER, DISTRICT TEACHERS APPOINTMENT APPELLATE AUTHORITY WEST CHAMPARAN, BETTIAH ----------- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Dev Kumar Pandey For the State :- Mr. Rai Shivajee Nath, AAG III For Respondent no. 7 :- Mr. B. K. Pandey ------ 5 04/03/2011 Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for private respondent no. 7 as well as learned counsel for the state, this Court has no hesitation in recording that the Member, District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority, West Champaran has failed in his duty in adjudicating the dispute raised by the petitioner as a dispute cannot be treated in a cursory and - 2 - casual manner when the finding recorded is without any discussion as to how such conclusion has been reached. Mere assertion that information was given through U.P.C. was accepted on the face value when the Court has time and again made comment about the authenticity of the information or notice sent through U.P.C. In this regard learned counsel for the petitioner draws my attention to the decision rendered in the case of Chitaranjan Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar and others, reported in 2010 (4) PLJR, 183. Private respondent no. 7, obviously, is a beneficiary of the whole hanky panky which was carried out in the appointment in the Panchayat concerned because his merit stands at serial no. 32 and it is too much to presume that all the 31 persons above him did not turn up for counseling and he was the only person who was really informed and noticed and turned up for counseling and was waiting for appointment by ignoring the claim of all those persons. Obviously, this aspect which could have helped the Appellate Authority to come to the rightful conclusion has not been looked into deeply. - 3 - In that view of the matter, the impugned order contained in annexure- 1 dated 04.09.2009 is hereby quashed. Matter is remanded back for fresh consideration after hearing the parties and after verifying all the records in this regard. This writ application is accordingly allowed. Till a fresh adjudication by the Appellate Authority, status quo shall be maintained. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)