IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10764 of 2009 1. Chinta Kumari, D/o-Ambika Roy, resident of village & P.O.-Barka Dya, P.S.-Dumraon, District-Buxar. 2. Vinay Kumar, S/o-Baikunth Natha Khare, resident of Mohalla-Bamar, Ward No.4, P.S. & District-Buxar. 3. Manoj Kumar Singh, S/o-Dadan Singh, resident of village-Chaturshalganj Dumron, P.S.-Dumron, District-Buxar. -Petitioners. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, New Secretariat, Patna. 3. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The District Education Officer, Buxar. 5. The District Superintendent of Education, Buxar. 6. The District Magistrate, Buxar. 7. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Buxar. 8. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dumraon, District-Buxar. 9. The Block Development Officer, Simari, District-Buxar. 10. The Block Education Extension Officer, Simari, District-Buxar. 11. The Member, Zila Shishak Niyozan Appellate Tribunal, Buxar. 12. The Muhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Kathar, P.S.-Krishna Braham, Block- Simari, District-Buxar. 13. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Kathar, P.S.-Krishna Braham, Block-Simari, District-Buxar. 14. Pramesh Kumar Singh, son of Surendra Kumar Singh, resident of Mohalla- Nabibazar, Ward No.4, P.S. & District-Buxar. 15. Pankaj Kumar Singh, son of Ramjee Singh, resident of village-Kathar, P.S.- Krishna Braham, District-Buxar. 16. Kumari Usha Tiwari, D/o-Sri Mahabir Choubey, R/o-village& P.O.-Kathar, P.S.- Krishna Braham, District-Buxar. -Respondents. ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Ram Subhas Singh. For the Pvt.-respondents : Mr. Chandra Mohan Jha. For the State : Mr. Md. Aslam Ansari. ---------- 04 12.07.2010 The petitioners were recruited as Panchayat Teachers in the year 2007. Complaining against the recruitment process, several complaints were filed before the Block Development Officer (B.D.O.), who enquired into the entire matter. Let it be noted that under Rule-18 of the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers - 2 - (Appointment and Service conditions) Rules, 2006 at the relevant time B.D.O. was the authority to hear the disputes with regard to appointment. The matter was enquired into in detail by the B.D.O. On 06.11.2007, when the B.D.O. asked for production of records of counseling, the Panchayat Secretary informed the B.D.O. that the counseling register had been lost. This was the crucial piece of evidence it showed that all persons were duly informed at the time of counseling and persons who were not meritorious were appointed. In view of the counseling register itself not being produced, the B.D.O. by the impugned order dated 06.11.2007 directed that fresh counseling and fresh merit list must be prepared and fresh appointments accordingly be made. Thus, having passed the order, the selection committee of the Panchayat was to take up the matter of selection, all over again nothing was done. To the contrary, the Mukhiya sat down as if sitting in appeal and took decisions that the selection was all right and there was no need for reconsideration. He then kept directing for payment of salary to the so called selected teachers. Ultimately, the teachers, upon the District Teachers Appointment Tribunal being constituted approached the Tribunal for payment of their salary. The private- respondents who had objected before the B.D.O. intervened and raised objections. The writ petitioners having preferred an appeal to the Tribunal also preferred a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No.5540 of 2009 before this Court. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Appellate Authority to dispose of both - 3 - the appeals in accordance with law after hearing all concerned within the statutory time fixed in Rule-2 of the notification creating the authority. Before the Appellate Authority various issues were raised, but ultimately the Appellate Authority by the impugned order dated 24.07.2009 held that the B.D.O. at the time when he had passed the order was the competent authority, had passed an order, which was bound to be obeyed by the Mukhiya and that order could not be challenged by any authority. Thus, the Appellate Authority declined to interfere in the matter because the Authority was a body substitute of the B.D.O. at the later stage in the same statute. Petitioners have, thus, come to this Court. Having heard the petitioner, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter for the simple reason that the order was passed by the B.D.O. after examining the records, which order is of the year 2007. The Mukhiya, who is supposed to be following the law and obeyed the order of the B.D.O. in that regard, as it then existed, chose to defy the same. The order of the B.D.O. was not challenged anywhere much less before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner urges that the B.D.O. has set aside the selection on the ground that one member of the committee was absent. He submits that absence of one member of the committee could not vitiate the decision of the committee. I am afraid that is not the point on which the B.D.O. has set aside the selection. The selection was set aside because the selection committee could not produce the records of counseling and at that - 4 - stage private-respondents and others were wrongly eliminated, showing that they had not turned up for counseling and petitioners were appointed. Thus, clearly the entire selection process was suspected and as such re-counseling and fresh merit list was ordered, which order has not been complied for three years. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Trivedi (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)