IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2225 of 2011 1.Md. Majid Eqbal son of Md. Mozible Haque, son of Md. Mozible Haque resident of village Noor Chak Police Station- Bhargama, District- Araria. 2. Binod Kumar son of Sikandar Mandal 3. Deepak Kumar, son of Baldeo Paswan 4. Guddi Kumari, daughter of Mahanand Shah 5.Bhadra Kumari, daughter of Kalanand Yadav Nos. 2 to 5 residents of village Maharajganj, Police Station jankinagar, Disjtrict- Purnea……………………. Petitioners. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department of the Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department of the Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Primary Education, Human Resources Development Department of the Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Regional Deputy Director of Education at Purnia. 5. The Member, District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority at Purnia, District- Purnia. 6. The Sub-divisonal Officer at Banmankhi within the district of Purnia 7. The Block Education Extension officer, Banmankhi within the district of Purnia. 8. The Block Education Extension Officer, Banmankhi within the District of Purnia. 9. The Panchayat Selection Committee of Gram Panchayat at Maharajganj-1 represented through the Mukhia, Maharanganj-1, Gram Panchayat Police Station Janki Nagar, District- Purnea. 10. The Mukhia, Gram Panchayat at Maharajganj-1 Police Station Jankinagar, District- Purnia. 11. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat at Maharanganj-1, Police Station jankinagar, District- Purnia. 12. Md. Afroj Alam son of Md. Sagiruddin resident of village Bishanpur Bazar Police Station Kumarkhand District- Madhepura. 13. Punam Kumari daughter of Anmol yadav, resident of village Nipania police Station- Janki Nagar, District- Purnia. 14. Pinki Kumari, daughter of Sachendra Yadav, resident of village Chakmaka Police Station Jankinagar, District- Purnia. 2 15. Kailash Paswan, son of Nageshwar Paswan, resident of village- Maharajganj Police Station Jankinagar, District- Purnea. 16. Archana Kumari daughter of Hari Nandan Prakash of village Rampur Tilak, Police Station Jankinagar, District-Purnea. ……………………. Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Arun Prasad Ambastha, Advocate For the State: Mr. Anisul Haque, A.C. to AAG-IX. -------------- 2. 29.8.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 13.12.2010 (Annexure-7) passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Purnea in Appeal No.818 of 2010/ 55 of 2009, by which the appointments of petitioners as Panchayat teacher have been cancelled and direction was issued to the Panchayat Selection Committee to appoint the private respondent Nos. 12 to 16 as Panchayat teacher within thirty days. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as many as 792 persons were applicants for 21 posts and as many as 192 persons turned up for counselling and thus the finding of the Appellate Authority that the counseling was not properly held is falsified by the appearance of such a large number of candidates. It is further submitted that the private respondents had been issued notices to appear in the counseling, as is evident from the 3 written application-cum-show causes submitted by the Mukhiya of the Panchayat, which shows that the candidates were sent information by post (Under Certificate of Posting) and when the candidate did not turn up, then from the merit list, the other candidates lower down in the list have been appointed. Learned counsel for the petitioners further assails the finding of the Appellate Authority that the application of the applicant should be treated as consent letter on the ground that it is contrary to the rules. So far as the question of considering the application as consent letter is concerned, the same may not be in accordance with the rules, but the finding of the Appellate Authority that the irregularities were committed in issuing notices cannot be assailed by the petitioners. It is evident that notice Under Certificate of Posting is not liable to be considered and has never been considered by the Courts as valid service and in all matters where such notices are required to be sent, the same must be sent by registered post. Thus, this Court does not find any reason to disagree with the finding of the Appellate Authority that there was bungling in sending the information to the candidates. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners 4 that as many as 192 candidates had appeared for counseling does not at all support their case, as the whole game of the respondent authorities was not to inform those who were higher in the merit list and if as many as 192 candidates out of 792 had appeared for counseling, the same does not mean that there was no bungling in the matter. The omission to inform the candidates higher in the merit list is meant to favour those who were lower than them so that they may be given appointment excluding those higher in the list. Thus, it is found that there was bungling in sending the information to the private respondents and non- appearance of the private respondents at the counseling cannot be held against them so as to deny their right to be appointed on the said post. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the direction to appoint the private respondents straight way even without verification of certificates, etc., which is the purpose of counseling, is illegal. It is the duty of the respondent authorities to look into the certificates of the private respondents, who were directed to be appointed by the Appellate Authority and verify their genuineness. Apart from the process of counseling, such duty and right are also vested in them under Rule 11 of the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers ( Appointment 5 and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006. Thus, on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 13.12.2010 passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Purnea. However, the direction to appoint the private respondents shall be treated as enjoining a duty upon the respondents appointing authorities to verify the certificates, etc. of the private respondents before appointing them on the said post. They shall also take the consent letters from them. The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed but with the aforesaid directions. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J. )