IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10428 of 2009 NARENDRA PRATAP MISHRA,S/O SHIVJEE MISHRA, R/O VILLAGE-GHORHAT, P.S. MANJHI, DISTRICT- GOPALGANJ,AT PRESENT SECRETARY OF AAPKA SAHARA SANSTHAN, A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1860 HAVING ITS REGISTRATION NO.372 OF 2001-02 SITUATED AT GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ GHORHAT, DISTRICT-SARAN AT CHAPRA. -PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DISTRICT TEACHER EMPLOYMENT APPELLATE AUTHORITY, SARAN 4. THE SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 5. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 6. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 7. THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, SARAN DIVISION, CHAPRA. 8. THE COLLECTOR, SARAN AT CHAPRA. 9. THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, SARAN AT CHAPRA. 10. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, MANJHI, DISTRICT-SARAN. 11. THE MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ GHORHAT, P.S. MANJHI, DISTRICT-SARAN. 12. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ GHORHAT, P.S. MANJHI, DISTRICT-SARAN. -RESPONDENTS ******* For the Petitioner : Mr. Jagnnath singh For the State : Mr. Lalit Kishore, AAG.III 2 24.08.2009 Heard Mr. Jagnnath Singh, for the petitioner and 2 Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Additional Advocate General-III, for respondents no.1 to 10. In view of the order proposed to be passed it is not necessary to issue notice to respondents no,.11 and 12. However, it is made clear that in case respondents no.11 and 12 feel aggrieved they can file petition for recall of the order. The present petitioner had earlier come to High Court making certain allegations regarding irregularity in the selection of Panchayat Teachers and the High Court had called upon the District Magistrate to look into the matter. Thereafter, contempt proceeding was initiated. At that stage the District Magistrate, vide Annexure-10, cancelled the selection process, reporting that the selection process has been cancelled. The contempt proceeding filed by the petitioner was closed wherein it was specifically observed: “We would like to clarify at this stage as suggested by the learned counsel for the intervener that earlier displeasure shown by this Court was only on account of delay in complying with the order of this Court on account of pendency of a handwriting test before the Forensic Science Laboratory, Patna. Now that issue has been properly tackled and some departmental proceeding as well as a criminal case appear to have been initiated. The impugned appointments have also been cancelled. We clarify that we have not applied ourselves to the merit of the 3 allegations made by the petitioner and it is only in the interest of justice and purity of administration that probe has been ordered into the affairs which required detailed scrutiny and probe. This Court is not concerned with the outcome of the proceedings initiated. The proceeding civil or criminal must proceed in accordance with law on their own merits.” Thereafter the respondent no.3 has passed an order as per Annexure-8 which apparently is the cause of action in filing the present writ petition. By Annexure-8 the appellate authority has taken a decision that respondent no.3 is the Authority to look into such matters and it has stayed as an interim measure the order of the District Magistrate dated 26.5.2009 by which the merit list was cancelled. We do not find it necessary to entertain this writ petition as in our considered opinion it is always open to the present petitioner to make representation before respondent no.3. It goes without saying that the Committee will take appropriate decision as expeditiously as possible. It is also made clear that in view of the earlier order passed by the High court as per Annexure-3, the respondent no.3, while dealing with the matter, has to look into all relevant aspects. With the above observation, this writ petition is 4 AAhmad/ disposed of. (P.K. Misra, CJ.) (Anjana Prakash, J.)