IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12120 of 2010 VED PRAKASH SON OF SRI KRISHNA DEO THAKUR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JIVRAKHANTOLA P.S. MANER DISTRICT- PATNA. … PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE SECRETARY, PRIMARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES GOVT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, DEPART OF HUMAN RESOURCES GOVT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE MEMBER, DISTRICT TEACHERS EMPLOYMENT APPELLATE AUTHORITY, PATNA. 5. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PATNA. 6. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, BIHAR PATNA. 7. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENTION OFFICER, MANER, PATNA. 8. THE HEAD MASTER, GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL, ALAKHBAGH, DANAPUR PATNA. 9. THE HEAD MASTER, GOVT MIDDLE SCHOOL DARVESHPUR (BAGICHA) YADAV TOLA, PATNA. 10. THE MUKHIYA, GRAMPANCHAYAT, DARVESHPUR UPARWAR DAKSHANI, P.S. MANER PATNA. 11. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAMPANCHAYAT, DARVESHPUR UPARWAR DAKSHANI P.S.- MANER, DISTRICT- PATNA. .. …RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2. 28.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Annexure-11, dated 26.5.2010 is the order passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Patna. By virtue of this order the Tribunal has held giving many a reasons that petitioner was never validly appointed on the post of a Panchayat Siksha Mitra. Therefore, there was no occasion to consider his case as such or giving benefit of appointment of Panchayat Teacher after 1.7.2006. The appellate authority has given its findings point- wise and those findings go to the root of the matter with regard to the so called selection having been made by the Panchayat in 2 question against a vacancy caused by removal of one Sri Nemi Chandra Thakur. There is finding that no proper notice was issued. There are no other applicants except the petitioner. The petitioner does not produce any letter of appointment or joining. The petitioner also for whatever be the reasons could not complete any training and all the circumstances go to show that the petitioner was never appointed on the post of a Panchayat Siksha Mitra. The petitioner has failed to bring on record any unimpeachable evidence except the so called resolution of the Mukhiya contained in Annexure-1 which in no manner falsifies the findings given by the appellate authority. No interference is warranted with the decision in question. The writ has no merit, which is dismissed. Ibrar/- ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)