IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.529 of 2011 GANESH KUMAR YADAV, son of Shri Asharfi Yadav, resident of village- Bathai, P.S.- Sakatpur (Manigachi), District- Darbhanga …. Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Secretary, Primary and Adult Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The Collector, Darbhanga 4. The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Darbhanga 5. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Darbhanga 6. The Block Development Officer, Darbhanga 7. Pramod Kumar, son of Jaldeo Ray, resident of village Lagma, P.S.-Sakatpur (Mahigachi), District-Darbhanga .. Respondents/Respondents ----------- For the petitioner :- Mr. Baidyanath Thakur, Advocate Mr. Shankar Kumar Thakur, Advocate For the State :-Sanjay Kumar, G.A.-5 2/- 30.03.2011 The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 04.01.2011 passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 5324 of 2010 questioning rejection of the application on the ground of delay. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that a person namely, Rajesh Kumar Roshan, who is similarly situated person as that of the appellant, has approached the District Collector, Darbhanga for appointment to the post of Shikshamitra merely after a period of 7 years and the said Rajesh Kumar Roshan has been appointed as a teacher in pursuance of the order passed by the District Collector, Darbhanga and the Tribunal was constituted thereafter in the 2 year 2006. It appears that appellant has got 58% marks and respondent No.7 has got only 51%. As the marks obtained by respondent No.7 was lesser, the appellant has chosen to approach the Tribunal but the Tribunal has dismissed the application of the appellant on the ground of delay. But as the learned Single Judge has also dismissed his writ petition, the present appeal has been filed. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been discriminated by the District Collector, Darbhanga, in view of the fact that application of similarly situated person namely, one Mr. Rajesh Kumar Roshan has been entertained on the same ground. But in view of the fact that respondent no.7 has been appointed merely after a period of seven years, we do not want to go into the merits of the case. But however, in view of the fact that the application of one Mr. Rajesh Kumar Roshan has been entertained by the District Collector, Darbhanga, we are of the opinion that the applicant-appellant herein should not be discriminated only on that ground alone. Learned Government Pleader has conceded 3 that the tribunal has no jurisdiction to pass any order after 2006. He has referred two judgments of this Court passed in the case of State of Bihar and ors reported in 2009 (2) PLJR p.929. Taking note of the fact that application of similarly situated person has been entertained by the District Collector, Darbhanga, we are of the opinion that the case of applicant may also be remanded to respondent no.3, taking note of the fact that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to pass any order after 2006. We are also of the opinion that the order passed by the Tribunal should be treated to be nullity for the reasons that it is an order passed without jurisdiction. We are of the opinion that as the application of similarly situated person namely one Rajesh Kumar Roshan has been entertained by the District Collector, it would suffice if a direction is issued to respondent no.3 to consider the representation of the appellant also and decide the same in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. This court orders accordingly. However, we made it clear that this 4 Court is not willing to disturb the appointment of respondent no.7. With the aforesaid observation and direction this L.P.A. is disposed of Ashwini/- (T. Meena Kumari, J.) (Akhilesh Chandra, J.)