IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10942 of 2010 1. MD. AQUIL S/O MD. IDRIS R/O VILL.- SAKARA FARIDPUR, P.S.- SAKARA, DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR 2. BINDESHWAR RAI S/O SHRI MAHENDRA RAI R/O VILL.- MARUAHA, P.S.- SAKARA, DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR 3. KUNDAN LATE D/O SIARAM PD. SINGH R/O VILL.- KAGESAR, P.S.- SAKARA, DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, MUZAFFARPUR 5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SAKARA, MUZAFFARPUR 6. THE BLOCK EDUCATION AND EXTENSION OFFICER, SAKARA-II, MUZAFFARPUR 7. THE MEMBER, DISTRICT TEACHERS EMPLOYMENT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUZAFFARPUR 8. THE MUKHIYA, KATESAR GRAM PANCHAYAT, SAKARA, MUZAFFARPUR 9. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY KATESAR GRAM PANCHAYAT, SAKARA, MUZAFFARPUR 10. SANJU KUMARI, ASSISTANT TEACHER null NEW PRIMARY SCHOOL, MARUAHA, MUKHIYA TOLA, SAKARA, MUZAFFARPUR 11. MD. SALAUDDIN, ASSISTANT TEACHER null NEW PRIMARY SCHOOL, MARUAHA, MUKHIYA TOLA, SAKARA, MUZAFFARPUR ----------- For the petitioners : M/S. Ashwini Kumar Singh, Sr. Advocate & Pramod Kumar. For the State: Mr. Sourendra Pandey, AC to SC 23. --------- 02. 14.3.2011 Annexure-13 is the order passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Muzaffarpur in Case No. 612 of 2009 and other analogous cases, which were heard and disposed of together. The impugned order is dated 27.5.2010. One of the primary grounds which have been urged on behalf of the three petitioners in the present writ 2 application is that the order of the appellate authority ought to be interfered with at the threshold on the ground that the case which was initiated before the tribunal was on the basis of certain claim made by one Sanju Kumari as well as one Md. Salauddin. They approached the tribunal seeking a direction that they ought to be paid their salary as their appointment on the post was legally valid and non-payment of salary was violation of their right. However, it seems according to the petitioners that the appellate authority expanded the area of adjudication and went to the extent of declaring the appointment of the present petitioners invalid as well. The appellate authority has no powers to do so. The other submission is that though the petitioners were noticed and they did participate in the proceeding, it was a limited participation because they made their submissions with regard to the claim made by Md. Salauddin and Sanju Kumari with regard to their right of salary, but the table was turned against these petitioners and even their appointment was declared to be invalid having consequences for them. There is no dispute that a set of cases came to be heard and decided together by the appellate authority. Issue related to appointment having been made by the Gram Panchayat for teachers appointment in the Panchayat which is known as Raj Katesar Panchayat, in the district of Muzaffarpur. A reading of the detailed order which has been passed would show that the issue did not remain limited to 3 payment of salary to the two complainants as all issues were interlinked. It was the manner in which appointments had come to be made, based on which the rights of persons flowed either for or against. From the reading of the order and the narration of the facts, based on the evidence produced before the tribunal, it cannot be said that the issue could be confined or was confined to payment of salary to the two persons alone. A detailed hearing was done in the manner in which appointments came to be made and the arbitrariness committed in such appointment process, in total disregard of the rules, the roster clearance and innovation to oust people having more merit or marks. Findings are one to many but the Court is not required to extract all of it from the order. A look at paragraph 27 and 36, coupled with the findings which have been reached at para 44 onwards of the order convinces the Court that no illegality has been committed by the tribunal. The submissions of petitioners do not merit consideration because this is a case where appointments have been made by playing fraud and mischief by appointing authority, to accommodate people who were not otherwise eligible. It is not a case where the petitioners were taken by surprise but all of them were heard, evidences were produced even with regard to the selection process. Submissions made on behalf of all the persons have been considered before conclusion was reached. 4 In the totality therefore, the mechanism of such selection cannot be interfered with on hyper technicality, which has no legs to stand any way. The writ has no merit. It is dismissed. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)