IN THE HIGH COUR T OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.480 of 2011 Ahilya Kumari daughter of Sri Ram Uchit Sahani resident of Village Damodarpur, P.O. Pasopur, P.S. Bhagwanpur, District Begusarai…..Petitioner……Appellant. . Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Begusarai. 4. District Superintendent of Education, Begusarai. 5. Block Education Officer, Bhagwanpur Block, District Begusarai. 6. Block Development Officer, Bhagwanpur Block, District Begusarai. 7. Gram Panchayat Raj, Damodarpur through Panchayat Secretary, Damodarpur, P.S. Bhagwanpur, District-Begusarai. 8. Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Damodarpur, P.S. Bhagwanpur, District Begusarai. 9. Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Damodarpur P.S. Bhagwanpur, District Begusarai. 10. Sudha Kumari, wife of Bipin Singh, daughter of Ram Udgar Ram, resident of village & P.O. Mahna via Barauni District Begusarai. 11. Member, District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Begusarai…………………………Respondents ………………Respondents. ----------- Letters Patent Appeal (arising out of judgment and order dated 14.2.2011 in C.W.J.C. No. 1775 of 2011). 2. 19.7.2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. The appellant is aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition preferred against decision by the authorities that his appointment was illegal, by manipulation and respondent No. 10 was wrongly deprived of appointment on the post of Panchayat Teacher, although she has 59.22% marks to her credit as against 47.67% marks of the writ petitioner/appellant. Submission advanced on behalf of the appellant is that the authorities did not give a positive finding that no notice was 2 published at the Panchayat Bhawan or given to respondent No. 10. That was precisely the grievance raised by the respondent No. 10 which has been accepted by the authorities after considering the entire facts and circumstances. Writ Court should be loath to interfere with findings of fact arrived at by the competent authority. In the present case, interference would lead to engagement of the appellant as a Teacher in preference to respondent No. 10, who has much higher marks than the appellant. Hence in our considered view the writ Court has rightly refused to interfere. The appeal is dismissed. Mkc/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Shivaji Pandey, J.)