IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8591 of 2010 1. MUSTAQUE ALAM, S/O LATE SADRE ALAM, R/O COLLEGE CHOWK,WARD NO. 3, P.S. MADHEPURA, DISTRICT MADHEPURA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES,GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR, RASTRIYA NIYOJAN KARYAKARAM, MADHEPURA. 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MADHEPURA. 5. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, MADHEPURA. 6. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION SUPERINTENDENT CUM CONVENOR, DISTRICT COMMITTEE SARVA SHIKSHA ABHIYAN, MADHEPURA. 7. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, BLOCK KUMARKHAND, DISTRICT MADHEPURA. 8. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER,BLOCK KUMARKHAND, DISTRICT MADHEPURA. 9. THE MUKHIYA CUM CHAIRMAN, GRAM PANCHAYAT BISHANPUR,KORLAHI,DISTRICT- MADHEPURA. 10. THE PANCHAYAT SACHIV CUM MEMBER TEACHERS SELECTION COMMITTEE,PANCHAYAT BISHANPUR,KORLAHI,DISTRICT-MADHEPURA. 11. DISTRICT TEACHERS APPOINTMENT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MADHEPURA. 12. SANTOSH KUMAR THAKUR, S/O SRI NARAYAN THAKUR, R/O VILLAGE DHURGAON, P.S. BHARAHI, O.P. DISTRICT MADHEPURA. ----------- 2 03/02/2011 The Court does not find any infirmity in the decision rendered by the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority, Madhepura which is annexure-1 under challenge in the present writ application. This is - 2 - so in the background that the present petitioner stood removed by the then Appellate Authority, namely, Block Development Officer, Kumarkhand Block in the district of Madhepura way back on 24.04.2008. That order was not under challenge in any manner before the competent court and when Santosh Kumar Thakur, private respondent no. 12, moved the appellate authority now for a direction for his appointment against the vacancy caused by removal of the petitioner, petitioner has approached the High Court seeking interference with the said order. So long as the earlier order passed by the Block Development Officer, Kumarkhand stands, there is no occasion for the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority now to review that matter or sit in appeal over that decision. The Authority has done no wrong by giving a direction in favour of Santosh Kumar Thakur because admittedly that vacancy exists due to removal of the petitioner. This writ application has no merit. It is dismissed. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.) - 3 -