IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15925 of 2009 Ranjit Ranjan, son of Sri Madan Prasad, resident of Simridih, P.S. Warsaliganj, District- Nawadah …………. Petitioner Versus 1.The State Of Bihar through the Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, New Secretariat, Patna 2.Office Superintendent, District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority, Nawada 3.District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Nawada 4.District Superintendent of Education, Nawada 5.Deputy Development Commissioner, Nawada 6.Block Development Officer, Pakri Barama, Nawada 7.Block Education Extension Officer, Pakri Barama, Nawada 8.Mukhiya, Belkhunda Gram Panchayat, Block- Pakri Barama, Nawada 9.Panchayat Sachib, Belkhunda Gram Panchayat, Nawada 10.Rajesh Kumar Paswan, son of Ram Rakesh Paswan, Panchayat Sevak, at present working as Panchayat Teacher, Primary School, Dhudaila, Belkhunda Panchayat, Block Pakri Barama, District- Nawada 11.Ram Janam Paswan, son of Durga Paswan, at present functioning as Panchayat Teacher, Primary School, Jasat, Belkhunda Panchayat, Pakri Barama, District- Nawada 12.Member, District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, District- Nawada. ----------- 3. 02/11/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 8.7.2009, as contained in Annexure-1, which appears to have been passed pursuant to the order passed in the earlier writ application of the petitioner on 28.2.2009, vide Annexure-2. When the petitioner had moved 2 this Court earlier in C.W.J.C.No.9795 of 2007, this Court had permitted learned counsel for the petitioner to withdraw the application with liberty to the petitioner to represent before the Appellate Authority constituted under Rule 18 of 2006 Rules, as amended in 2008. Accordingly, Appellate Authority has considered the matter of the petitioner as well as other complainants and passed order, as contained in Annexure-1. From Annexure-1, it appears that on three dates counseling was held in the Panchayat and the petitioner did not appear in the counseling on any of the dates. Therefore, it was held that since petitioner had not appeared in the counseling, he was rightly not appointed. Grievance of the petitioner is that the cases of other persons were also considered by the Appellate Authority but no separate finding was given in respect of the petitioner. After going through the said order, this Court finds that in respect of the petitioner, the Appellate Authority has clearly held that since he had not appeared 3 in the counseling, he was not appointed. There is no material on record to controvert this question of fact except a complaint filed by the successful candidates that no proper counseling was held. This question of fact cannot be decided by this Court in writ jurisdiction. The Appellate Authority has gone into the matter and has found as a fact that the petitioner had not appeared in the counseling. In the circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in this writ application. It is accordingly dismissed. Pradeep/ ( J. N. Singh,J.)