IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.264 of 2011 In CWJC No. 15614 of 2010 With I.A. No. 1112 of 2011 In LPA No. 264 of 2011 ==================================================== Santosh Kumar, S/o Sri Ganesh Kumar Mehta, R/o Village-Sukhasan, P.S.-Singheswar, District-Madhepura. ….. Appellant. Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through Principal Secretary, Human Resources Department, New Secretariat, Patna. 2. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. District Magistrate, Madhepura. 4. District Education Officer, Madhepura. 5. District Superintendent of Education, Madhepura. 6. Sub-Divisional Officer, Madhepura. 7. Block Development Officer, Singheshwar Madhepura. 8. Block Education Extension Officer, Singheshwar (West), District- Madhepura. 9. Panchayat Secretary, Sukhasan Gram Panchayat, Singheshwar, District-Madhepura. 10. Member, District Panchayat Teachers Appointment Appellate Tribunal, Madhepura. 11. Ramdeo Thakur, S/o Late Bindeshwari Thakur, R/o Village- Belokala, P.S.-Murliganj, District-Madhepura. …….. Respondents. ==================================================== APPEARANCE : For the Appellant : Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. A.K.Pandey, G.A.-9. ==================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN 2 ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2. 10.02.2011 Re.- Interlocutory Application No. 1112 of 2011. This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed by the appellant for condonation of delay of 3 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the delay is condoned. Interlocutory application stands disposed of. Letters Patent Appeal No. 264 of 2011: Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 30th November 2010 made by the learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 15614 of 2010, the appellant has filed this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The appellant, feeling aggrieved by his non- selection as Panchayat Teacher under the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teacher (Employment and Service Condition) Rules, 2006, lodged a complaint before the appellate authority in respect of selection of one Ramdeo Thakur. According to the appellant, the said Ramdeo Thakur was selected as Panchayat Teacher by the Panchayat Secretary and the Mukhiya after accepting illegal gratification of Rs. 30,000/-. The appellate authority in its order dated 9th June 2010 held that the selection procedure was defective and therefore, set aside the entire selection. Feeling aggrieved, the selected Panchayat 3 Teachers approached this court in CWJC Nos. 9912/10, 9918/10, 10051/2010, 10267/10 and 10268/10 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. By a common judgment and order dated 16th July 2010 passed by this court (Coram: Navniti Prasad Singh, J.), the said writ petitions were allowed. The order dated 9th June 2010 passed by the appellate authority was quashed. Learned single Judge was pleased to observe, “it is, however, open to the Tribunal that if proper facts being pleaded it would take appropriate action as permissible in law.” The appellant-petitioner filed above C.W.J.C. No. 15614 of 2010 to challenge the very order dated 9th June 2010 passed by the appellate authority. The learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. Nevertheless, the learned single Judge has observed, “if the law permits, let petitioner move the authority concerned with his individual grievance.” Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present Appeal. Learned Advocate Mr. Deepak Kumar has appeared for the appellant. He has submitted that his grievance against the selection and appointment of the above referred Ramdeo Thakur remains undecided and in view of the judgment of the learned single Judge the issue will not be entertained by the appellate authority. We do appreciate the grievance made by the appellant. However, it may be noted that the appellant challenged the order dated 9th June, 2010 which had 4 already been set aside by this court on 16th July 2010. The challenge to the said order in above writ petition was misconceived. Learned single Judge has rightly held that the petition was not maintainable in view of the judgment and order dated 16th July 2010 of this court. No case for interference is made out. The Appeal is dismissed in limine. As to the grievance in respect of the appointment of the aforesaid Ramdeo Thakur, we have perused the application made by the appellant before the Appellate Authority. In the said application also, the appellant did not make any averment in respect of the genuineness of the documents produced by the said Ramdeo Thakur. We may, however, observe that the appellant will be at liberty to avail of the remedy as observed by this court in the judgment and order dated 16th July 2010 and the liberty reserved by the learned single Judge in the impugned judgment and order dated 30th November 2010 to challenge the selection and appointment of the above referred Ramdeo Thakur, allegedly made on the basis of false/fabricated certificates. Sujit (R.M.Doshit, CJ.) (Jyoti Saran,J.)