IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6765 of 2007 MADHU SINGH, D/o Lackhi Narayan Singh, resident of village Suryapura, P.S. Suryapura, District Rohtas … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Commissioner cum Secretary, Human Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. Director, Panchayati Raj, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 4. District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram 5. Deputy Development Commissioner, Rohtas at Sasaram 6. District Panchayati Raj Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram 7. District Superintendent of Education, Rohtas at Sasaram 8. Block Development Officer, Dinara, District Rohtas 9. Block Education Extension Officer, Dinara, District Rohtas (Sasaram) 10. Mukhiya, Saram Panchayat, Block Dinara, District Rohtas (Sasaram) 11. Panchayat Secretary, Saraon Panchayat, Block Dinara, District Rohtas 12. Director, National Employment and Training Programme, Rohtas at Sasaram 13. Shashikala Kumari, D/o Hari Krishna Prasad, resident of village Saraon Natwar, District Rohtas (Sasaram) … Respondents ----------- 2. 21.9.2010 Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State in respect of the following relief: “i) To issue an appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Panchayat teacher in Saraon Panchayat under Dinara Block as the person who have lesser point in merit list have already been appointed. ii) To issue a further writ order 2 or direction commanding the respondents to cancel the appointment of respondent no.13 who is admittedly a lesser qualified candidate than the petitioner. iii) This Hon’ble Court may further adjudicate and hold that the selection of the respondent no.13 on the post of Panchayat teacher is abinitio void, illegal and against the provisions of law.” this Court is of the opinion that any grievance of the petitioner pertaining to alleged illegality in preparation of panel for the post of Panchayat Shikshak and consequential appointment on the said post had to be ventilated before the prescribed authority, namely, the Block Development Officer or the District Teachers Appellate authority. The reference made by the petitioner to a communication of the Collector of the District addressed to the Block Development Officer dated 9.2.2007 (Annexure 7) cannot be the order of the authority empowered under 2006 Rules to examine the alleged illegality in selection and appointment on the post of Panchayat Shikshak. When the petitioner has filed this 3 writ application, the writ application was filed on 22.5.2007 and to day when it has been taken up such power under 2006 Rules has been vested in the District Teachers Appellate authority and therefore, this Court would hold that the petitioner’s remedy as against the alleged illegality on the ground of candidates securing lesser marks in comparison to the petitioner having been selected and appointed on the post of Panchayat Shikshak in question would lie before the District Teachers Appellate authority of Rohtas District. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is dismissed. The order of dismissal of this writ application, however, would not come in the way of the petitioner in moving before the District Teachers Appellate authority or its ultimate decision on the complaint of the petitioner. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/