IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.89 of 2011 ANJU KUMARI, W/O of Sri Ramesh Kumar Yadav and D/O Sri Gajendra Yadav, R/O Village Ekdara, P.S. Khajauli, District Madhubani. ……………(Petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 17340/2010)…………Appellant Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, Department of Human Resources Development, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3.THE DISTRICT TEACHER EMPLOYMENT APPELLATE AUTHORITY, Balbhadrapur, Laheriya Sarai, Darbhanga. 4.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, Darbhanga. 5.THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION CUM DISTRICT PROGRAMME CO-ORDINATOR, Sarba Shiksha Abhiyan, Darbhanga. 6.THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, Jaley, Post Jaley, District Darbhanga. 7.THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, Jaley, P.S. Jaley, District Darbhanga. 8.THE MUKHIYA, Gram Panchayat Raj Rarhi Purvi, Post Kamtaul, P.S. Kamtaul, P.S. Kamtaul, District Darbhanga. 9.THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, Gram Panchayat Raj, Rarhi Purvi, Post Kamtaul, District Darbhanga. 10.RANJU KUMARI, W/O Sri Lakshman Sahu, R/O Mohalla Lakshmi Sagar, Post Lakshmi Sagar, P.S. Sadar, District Darbhanga. …………(Respondents in C.W.J.C. No. 17340/2010………………Respondents ----------- 04. 11/04/2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. Appellant has challenged the judgment of the writ court dated 10.11.2010 whereby writ petition preferred by him bearing C.W.J.C. No. 17340 of 2010 has been dismissed after considering both the grounds raised on behalf of the appellant-petitioner against the order dated 06.09.2010 passed by District Teachers Appointment Appellate 2 Authority, Darbhanga in Case No. 724 of 2009. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the counselling held on 18th October, 2006 should not have been interfered with. This issue is related to the second ground raised before the writ court, this has been decided on the basis of relevant and material facts which have led to the conclusion that counselling held on 16th and 17th of October, 2006 was after notice and was well attended by all whereas there was no prior notice for the counselling held on 18.12.2006 wherein the appellant who had lesser mark than his rival was selected on the ground that others had not turned up for the counselling. On going through all the relevant facts expressed by the writ court, we find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there was another prayer in the writ petition for directing payment of dues of salary to the petitioner for the period April to August 2010. Learned 3 counsel for the State submitted that this prayer was not pressed before the writ court and therefore it could not be noticed. Be that as it may, in the facts of the case, so far as the prayer for payment of dues of salary is concerned, it is observed that if the petitioner had worked for the concerned period, in that event his lawful dues of salary should be paid. Praveen/- ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) ( Akhilesh Chandra, J.)