IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.5 of 2011 2 11.1.2011 Rajnish Kumar Tilak, son of Jai Narain Singh, resident of village- Kewal Fariyat, Police Station Khaira, District Jamui …… Respondent No.8……… Appellant VERSUS 1. Nitish Kumar, son of Sri Bipin Kumar, resident of village- Tari Dabil, Police Station Khaira, Post Office- Dabil, District Jamui …….. Writ petitioner….. Respondent 2. The State of Bihar 3. The District Magistrate, Jamui 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Jamui 5. The Block Development Officer, Khaira, Jamui 6. The Block Education Extension Officer, Khaira, Jamui 7.The Panchayat Sachiv, Gram Panchayat Raj, Kageshwar, Block Khaira, District Jamui 8. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Kageshwar, Block Khaira, District Jamui……. Respondents 1 to 7 in the writ petitioner Respondents -------- For the Appellant : M/s Uma Kant Shukla & Pramod Kumar, Advocates For the State : M/s Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate AAG 1 with Vikash Kumar, Adv. --------- Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. The Writ Court by the impugned order dated 18.11.2010 has allowed the writ petition preferred by Nitish Kumar, private respondent, because it was noticed that he was the best available candidate as per merit list - 2 - for appointment to the post of Primary Panchayat Teacher. It was also noticed that the selection committee as per its stand, did not finalize the counseling on the first date and on that plea on a subsequent date duly notified, the writ petitioner was selected and appointed as he was the most meritorious candidate. Such selection was interfered by the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Tribunal, Jamui at the instance of the appellant only on the ground that there was no justification for not completing the counseling on 24.10.2007. The Writ Court found such view of the Appellate Tribunal hyper- technical because on such technical plea the selection and appointment of the best candidate was interfered with. On considering the facts mentioned in the order under appeal as well as on going through the stand of the writ petitioner as noted in the order of the Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.19/09 dated 30.6.2010 contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition, we are not persuaded to interfere with the order of the Writ Court even on the additional ground that the Tribunal did not give any - 3 - contrary finding to the plea taken by the writ petitioner that intimation of counseling on 24.7.2007 was not properly communicated and it was shown only on the notice board and, therefore, he received actual notice belatedly and could not reach the counseling centre within time. When the ultimate counseling has resulted in selection of the best candidate, in our view, the Writ Court has rightly allowed the claim of the writ petitioner. We find no good reasons to entertain this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. sk (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Dr Ravi Ranjan, J.)