IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4894 of 2010 Md.Amin Khan, son of Md. Zubair Kha, Resident of Village-Salimnagar, P.O. and P.S. Maheshkoot, District- Khagaria …………………………. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. District Magistrate-cum-President, Sarv Siksha Mission, Khagaria 3. District Superintendent of Education, Khagaria 4. Block Education Extension Officer, Block Gogri, District- Khagaria 5. B.D.O., Gogri, District-Khagaria 6. Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Samaspur, Block-Gogri, District- Khagaria 7. Panchayat Sachiv, Gram Panchyat Samaspur, Block- Gogri, District-Khagaria 8. District Education Employment Authority, Khagaria ……………….. Respondents ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Sajid Salim Kha, Advocate For the State: Mr. Ravi Varma, AC to GP 12 For the intervener: M/S Ajit Kumar and H.S. Roy, Advocates. ----------- 4. 20.6.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsels for the intervener and the State. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 7.9.2009 passed in Appeal No. 47-01/09 by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Khagaria rejecting the appeal of the petitioner and also quashing of the office order dated 30.6.2006 issued by the Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Samaspur, Block-Gogri, District-Khagaria and for consequential 2 relief. The petitioner possesses the qualification of Maulvi Examination (Intermediate Examination) conducted by the Bihar State Madarsa Education Board in the year 2004. He claims to have applied for the post of Panchayat Teacher in Samaspur Gram Panchayat, Block Gogri, District-Khagaria pursuant to which he was employed as Shiksha Mitra (Panchayat Teacher) in Kanya Prathmik Vidyalaya, Salimpur by letter dated 6.5.2005 issued by the Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat and he joined in the said school on 7.5.2005. A complaint was made regarding the appointment of Panchayat Teachers in Gogri Block. In the enquiry conducted by the SDO, Gogri nothing wrong was found with the employment of the petitioner. The petitioner was also paid salary for six months amounting to Rs. 9000/- on 16.2.2006. Thereafter an enquiry report was also submitted by the Block Education Extension Officer, Gogri in which the petitioner’s name was mentioned as a validly appointed Panchayat Teacher. On the petition of the petitioner to the District Magistrate, a report was given by the Block 3 Development Officer, Gogri stating that the petitioner’s appointment as Shiksha Mitra was found to be correct after enquiry. Another three-member committee also found the appointment of the petitioner as valid and proper by letter dated 8.12.2007 and recommended for payment of salary to the petitioner. However, when the salary of the petitioner was not paid, the petitioner filed an appeal before the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Khagaria which by the impugned order dated 7.9.2009 passed in Appeal Case No. 47- 01/09 rejected the appeal of the petitioner. In the impugned order the Authority has found that in the merit list the weightage of the petitioner was 15 whereas the weightage of the intervener Pravin Kumar was 19. It was also found that the intervener Pravin Kumar was appointed on the roster point 7 which was unreserved post whereas the then Mukhiya of Samaspur Gram Panchayat had wrongly appointed the petitioner on the post of Shiksha Mitra. The Authority has further taken into account the fact that on the complaint of Pravin Kumar and Dilip Kumar the District Magistrate had directed the Block 4 Development Officer, Gogri to make an enquiry who gave his enquiry report on 30.1.2006 on the basis of which the District Superintendent of Education by his letter dated 27.6.2006 directed the Mukhiya and the Panchayat Secretary of Samaspur Panchayat to cancel the appointment of the petitioner and by letter dated 30.6.2006 the petitioner’s appointment was cancelled and the intervener Pravin Kumar was appointed by another letter of the same date against roster point no. 7 against unreserved seat. The Authority has also taken into account the fact that at the time of advertisement for appointment of Shiksha Mitra there was no mention of any Urdu seat in the roster and there was no direction by the Government to the Panchayat Secretary to make such appointment. The appointment of the petitioner was therefore held to be illegal and the appointment of the intervener Pravin Kumar as legal and valid and accordingly the petitioner’s appeal was rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the letter dated 12.4.2006 of the Block Development Officer and the letter dated 8.12.2007 of 5 the District Superintendent of Education. He also relies upon the certificate dated 25.1.2006 of the Principal of the School and the Form for Collection of figures in the District by the Bihar Education Project Council, Patna signed by the Principal of the school dated 21.11.2007 in which the medium of education in the school has been shown as Urdu. It is submitted that there was directive of the Block Education Extension Officer, Gogri to the Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat, Samaspur/Bari Gogri dated 12.5.2005 in which it was directed that Urdu Shiksha Mitra are to be appointed according to roster and in such Hindi school also where there are 20 to 25 students studying Urdu at least one Urdu Shiksha Mitra should be appointed. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed in terms of the said directives as the said school is an Urdu Medium School. Learned counsel also harps upon the fact that there are several findings in favour of the valid appointment of the petitioner by the authorities of the Government. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, supports the impugned order of the Authority 6 stating that the action for cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner has been taken on the basis of the report submitted by the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Block Development Officer. It is further submitted that the reliance upon the directive issued by the Block Education Extension Officer on 12.5.2005 can be of no avail to the petitioner as the said letter clearly mentions that such appointments are to be made in accordance with the roster whereas there is a clear finding of fact by the Authority that the concerned roster did not mention any seat for Urdu Teacher. It is also submitted by learned counsel that the intervener Pravin Kumar having obtained better weightage the appointment of the petitioner was illegal and has rightly been cancelled by the respondent authorities which has been upheld by the Appellate Authority. I have considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties. It is true that the reports of the Government officials at different points of time appear to be contradictory, some of them in favour of the petitioner and others in favour of the intervener Pravin Kumar. However, the principal issue 7 has rightly been considered by the Authority to be the position prevailing in the roster which does not mention any post of Urdu Teacher at the relevant time. Once the said fact is accepted and there is nothing on the record to show that the said finding of the Authority is perverse, then there can be no question of appointing the petitioner who received the weightage of 15 vis-à- vis the intervener Pravin Kumar who received weightage of 19. The Authority has relied upon relevant materials in arriving at the decision and this Court will not normally sit in appeal over the findings of fact recorded by the Authority which appear to be based on the materials on the record. In the above circumstances, this Court does not find any occasion to interfere with the impugned order dated 7.9.2009 passed by the Appellate Authority. The writ application is accordingly dismissed. S.Pandey ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)