IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.989 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15215 of 2010 ====================================================== Ram Lakhan Prasad, S/o Ram Charitar Prasad, R/o Village-Bala Bigha, P.O.-Naily, P.S.-Nim Chak Bathani, District-Gaya. .... Petitioner .... Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director Primary Education, Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Superintendent of Education, Nalanda. 4. The Sub-Divisional Education Officer, Biharsharif, Nalanda. 5. The Member, District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Nalanda. 6. The Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Co-operation, Biharsharif, Nalanda. 7. Sanjeet Kumar Sharma, S/o Ram Chandra Prasad Sharma, R/o Village- Daulatpur, P.O.-Chhotipali, P.S.-Narhat, District-Nawada. ....Respondents .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey with Mr. Ramanuj Tiwary, Advocates For the State : Mr. A.K. Sharan, S.C.-9 For the Respondent No.7 : Mr. Mukesh Kumar and Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Advocates ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 3/ 06-09-2011 This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is preferred by the writ petitioner against the order dated 28th April 2011 made by the learned single Judge in above CWJC No. 15215 Patna High Court LPA No.989 of 2011 (3) dt.06-09-2011 2 of 2010. Pursuant to a recruitment process commenced in the year 2006, the appellant had applied for appointment as a Music Teacher in the Nagar Council Secondary School, Bihar Sharif. In the recruitment process, the petitioner was not selected, instead the respondent no.7 one Sanjeet Kumar Sharma was selected and appointed as Music Teacher. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached the appellate authority constituted under Rule 15 of the Bihar Municipal Body Secondary and Senior Secondary Teacher (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’). The appellate authority rejected the claim of the appellant on 23rd July 2009. The challenge to the said order dated 23rd July 2009 before the learned single Judge has failed. Therefore, the present Appeal. Learned Advocate Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey has appeared for the appellant. He has relied upon the Rule 4 (vi) of the Rules. He has submitted that the said Clause (vi) deals with the Music/ Fine Arts Teacher. It provides that a candidate should possess a Bachelor’s Degree in Music and/or Fine Arts from a recognised university. He has submitted that the marks obtained at such Degree course shall be relevant consideration for selection of the candidate as Music Teacher. He has relied upon the result sheet. He has submitted that in the present case result sheet has been prepared on the basis of qualifications other than the marks obtained in the Degree course in Music. Learned single Judge has rejected the claim of the Patna High Court LPA No.989 of 2011 (3) dt.06-09-2011 3 appellant on the principle of delay and laches. The selection made in the year 2006 was challenged by the appellant as late as in the year 2009. The delay was not explained. Besides, the aforesaid Rule 4 of the Rules provides for eligibility; Clause (vi) thereof requires that for a teacher in Music or Fine Arts, a candidate must possess Bachelor’s Degree in Music or Fine Arts. The said Rule 4 or Clause (vi) thereof does not provide for determination of comparative merits of the candidates. The conditions for selection and preparation of merit list are provided in Rule 6 of the Rules. Clause (iv) thereof provides for preparation of merit list on the basis of the average of the marks obtained at the Degree examination, Higher Secondary and Secondary Examination and in B.Ed. examination. Hence, the argument that the marks obtained at the Degree course in Music could have been the only consideration for preparation of merit list is fallacious and contrary to the aforesaid Rule 6 (iv) of the Rules. The grievance made by the appellant is imaginary and has no merit. For the aforesaid reasons, the Appeal is dismissed in limine. Anjani / Devendra (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)