IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14353 of 2008 MD.KAMRUL HAQUE, S/O MD.MOKIM RIEN, VILLAGE- GOPALPUR, P.O.-SURSAND, DISTRICT-SITAMARHI. ………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, PATNA. 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, P.O. AND P.S.- DUMRA, DISTRICT-SITAMARHI. 3. THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, AT+P.O.+P.S.-DUMRA, DISTRICT-SITAMARHI. 4. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, BLOCK- BOKHATA, P.S.-KOKATA, DISTRICT- SITAMARHI. 5. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, NANPUR-I BOKHDA II, BLOCK-BOKHDA, DISTRICT-SITAMARHI. 6. THE BOKHDRA PANCHAYAT SAMITI THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, BLOCK BOKHDA, P.S.- NANPUR, DISTRICT-SITAMARHI.…RESPONDENTS. ----------- 4 15.11.2011 As per the case of the petitioner, in the process for first phase of appointment of Panchayat Teachers initiated after the 2006 Rules came into force, petitioner was empanelled at the top of the panel as he had highest marks. But, due to some reasons, the employment agency did not complete the process and did not issue appointment letter. In the meanwhile, State Government issued a letter dated 19.11.2007, vide Annexure-B to the counter affidavit, directing all the employment agencies to complete the process positively by 30.11.2007 and prohibited them to make 2 any appointment thereafter without prior permission of the Department. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the employment agency had deliberately not held its meeting and deliberately did not complete the process and did not issue appointment letter in favour of the petitioner and even after issue of this letter by the Department they did not seek permission from the Department for appointment of the petitioner. He submits that this letter of the Department contemplated that, if any employment agency had deliberately not completed the process, action was to be taken against them. He submits that, in spite of the same, no action has been taken against them by the Department. However, this is not asserted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the vacancy still continues and no one has been appointed on the post. Hence, it may be that the vacancy may have been included in the second phase of appointment and somebody may have already been appointed. Hence, in the absence of said appointee, no 3 positive direction can be issued in favour of the petitioner in the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in the circumstances, petitioner may be granted liberty to move the Appellate Authority in the matter for consideration of his case. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move the Appellate Authority in accordance with law. If he does so, the Appellate Authority shall issue notice to the concerned parties giving them opportunity to be heard and shall pass appropriate orders considering as to what relief can be granted to the petitioner even, in case, vacancy does not exist, as for no fault of his was deprived of the employment as per his case. Final orders by the Appellate Authority in accordance with law must be passed within two months from the date of approach by the petitioner to it. Arvind/ ( J.N. Singh, J.)