IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3145 of 2011 Dezy Kumari, wife of Naveen Kumar Thakur, resident of village- Hanuman Nagar, Police Station- Sursand, District- Sitamarhi, presently posted as Panchayat Teacher Govt. Primary School Parigama, Police Station- Pupri, District- Sitamarhi………………. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Superintendent of Education, Sitamarhi. 4. The Block Educatioin Extension Officer, Pupari Choraut. 5. The Gram Panchayat Raj, Parigama, P.S. Pupari, District- Sitamarhi through its Mukhiya. 6. The Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Raj, Parigama, P.S.Pupari, District- Sitamarhi. 7. The Panchayat Sachiv, Gram Panchayat Raj, Parigama, Police Station-Pupari, District-Sitamarhi. 8. Nitu Kumari, wife of Sri Saket Bihari Singh, resident of village-Bhantabari, P.S. Pupari, District-Sitamarhi. 9. Gunjan Kumari, daughter of Ajay Shankar Chaudhary, resident of village-Barari Behata, P.S. Pupari, District- Sitamarhi………….. Respondents. ---------------------------------- 2. 18.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 29.1.2011 passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Sitamarhi in Case No. 98 of 2010, by which the appeal filed by respondent No.9, Gunjan Kumari, has been allowed and the appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled and it has been directed to 2 appoint the respondent No.9 on the post of Panchayat Teacher. The petitioner along with others had applied for appointment on the post of Panchayat Teacher. Out of a total of seven posts, two were reserved for unreserved Female Category, against which the petitioner as also respondent No.9 along with others had applied. It is not in dispute that respondent No.9 was higher on the merit list but ultimately the petitioner was appointed against the second post of unreserved Female Category. On learning about the selection of the petitioner, respondent No.9 approached the respondent authorities and thereafter filed a writ petition before this Court. The writ petition, being C.W.J.C. No.5619/2008, was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority. On the appeal so filed by respondent No.9, the impugned order has been passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner assails the order of the Appellate Authority that no clear-cut finding has been given as to whether the respondent No.9 was present at the time of counseling or not and thus it was not open to the Appellate Authority to cancel the appointment 3 of the petitioner and direct the appointment of respondent No.9 merely on the ground that respondent No.9 had higher marks than the petitioner. It is submitted that the communication for appearing at the counseling was given to all the candidates Under Certificate of Posting on the basis of which the petitioner had appeared for counseling; if the respondent No.9 had not taken any heed of the said communication, then she was not entitled to be appointed. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that the communication Under Certificate of Posting is not a proper mode of communication and is open to gross misuse unlike communication through registered post with A/D. It is thus submitted by him that the order of the Appellate Authority is not fit to be interfered with as it has come to the conclusion that the documents relating to the appointment process had not been published as per the materials available on the record. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions of learned counsels for the petitioner and for the State, this Court is of the view that any communication to appear at the 4 counseling under Certificate of Posting is not a reliable or valid mode of communication and is open to grave misuse. It is the admitted position that respondent No.9 had higher marks on the merit list and thus she was entitled to proper communication for appearing at the counseling. Admittedly, the same was not done by sending a notice to appear under registered post with A/D, rather it is claimed to have been sent Under Certificate of Posting. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the communication for counseling was not sent to the respondent No.9 under a valid mode The aforesaid being the position, the impugned order of the Appellate Authority is not fit to be interfered with in the opinion of this Court, as it has directed the appointment of a person having admittedly more marks than the petitioner and who had not been communicated about the date of counseling in a proper manner. The writ application, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)