IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6350 of 2010 RAJESH KUMAR S/O SRI MAHADEO SAH R/O VILL AMER, P.O.NAWANAGAR, BLOCK & P.S.BIDUPUR, DISTT-VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR, P.S. &DISTT-VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR 3. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR, P.S.&DISTT-VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR 4. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BIDUPUR, DISTT- VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR 5. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER BIDUPUR, DISTT-VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR 6. THE MUKHIYA , GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ AMER, BLOCK BIDUPUR, DISTT-VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR 7. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ AMER, BLOCK BIDUPUR, DISTT-VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR 8. MEMBER , DISTRICT TEACHER EMPLOYMENT APPELLATE AUTHORITY VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR, P.O.+P.S.HAJIPUR, DISTT-VAISHALI ----------- 02. 13.1.2011 Annexure-9 is under challenge in the present writ application by virtue of which the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Vaishali has upheld the termination of the petitioner on a categorical finding having been recorded on due perusal of the records that the name of the petitioner was never recommended or considered for appointment on the post of a Panchayat Shiksha Mitra as the proceeding book of the Sukh Subidha Samiti does not carry the name of the petitioner. Obviously petitioner could not have been engaged or employed in the Panchayat. His engagement therefore was per say illegal and if that be so, his continuity too becomes illegal. Counsel for the petitioner has thereafter tried to draw the attention of this Court to some documents contained in Annexures 1 and 2 to show that there were recommendations and petitioner was 2 selected. This Court has reservation in accepting those documents at the level of the High Court because the petitioner was given an opportunity to produce whatever he could have produced before the tribunal. Findings are there, based on the perusal of the records and there is nothing to upturn that finding based on Annexure-1. So far as the case of petitioner for discrimination is concerned, vis-à-vis other persons in similar circumstance, that circumstance is not found by this Court. So far as termination by a person not authorized to do so is concerned, it is yet another issue. The question is whether petitioner could be engaged at all on the post in question initially without following the procedure. If the tribunal has given findings that all is not well with the engagement of the petitioner, there is no reason why this Court should interfere with the order by trying to find similarity with the case of A and B, whoever they may be. The writ application is dismissed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)