IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10371 of 2010 1. RANJAN KUMAR TIWARY S/O SHRI ARVIND KUMAR TIWARY R/O VILL.- KARANPURA, P.S.- SIGORI, DISTT.- PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR (PRIMARY EDUCATION), EDUCTION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE NAWADAH, DISTT.- NAWADAH 4. THE HEAD ASSISTANT, DISTRICT TEACHER'S APPOINTMENT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAWADAH, DISTT.- NAWADAH 5. THE DISTRICT EDUCTION SUPERINTENDENT-CUM-NODAL OFFICER, NAWADAH, DISTT.- NAWADAH 6. SUB DIVISIONAL EDUCATION OFFICER-CUM-SECRETARY, NAGAR PARISHAD, NAWADAH, DISTT.- NAWADAH 7. EMPLOYMENT OFFICER, NAGAR PANCHAYAT, HISUA, DISTT.- NAWADAH 8. EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NAGAR PANCHAYAT HISSUA DISTT.- NAWDAH 9. KUMAR SANJAY S/O SHRI GAJANAN PRASAD SINGH R/O VILL.- KHARAUA ----------- For the petitioner: M/S. Manan Kumar Mishra, Sr. Advocate and Vishwajeet Mishra. For the State : Mrs. Archana Prasad, AC to GP 19. ----- 02. 7.3.2011 Only reason why the petitioner wants removal of the private respondent on his selection as a Biology Teacher is that he failed to produce the original records and the certificates in support of his claim that he had 72.80% marks and that he was a trained teacher. Submission of the learned senior counsel representing the petitioner is that if the private respondent failed to get the certificates verified on the date of counselling, he lost his right for appointment and present petitioner ought to have been given opportunity for appointment. 2 Learned senior counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that the private respondent has more marks than the petitioner and he is also a trained teacher but whatever be the reason for non-production of his certificates on the date of verification, the basic fact does not stand denied. In that view of the matter appointment has been offered to the private respondent and a letter in this regard has been written to the Director, Secondary Education, for confirmation of joining of the private respondent. The objection raised is too hyper and technical and that does not take away the merit of the private respondent as such. If it is not disputed that he is a trained teacher as well as having more marks than the present petitioner, this Court does not want to deny the benefit of appointment to a more meritorious candidate than the present petitioner. The writ has no merit. It is dismissed. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)