IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8305 of 2010 1. Vina Kumari W/O Hemkant Yadav @ Hemant Kumar Yadav, D/O Sri Chandrakant Yadav R/O Vill.- Aamgachi, P.S.- Bounsi, Distt.- Banka Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate, Banka 3. The District Superintendent Of Education Banka 4. The Block Development Officer Bounsi, Distt.- Banka 5. Anant Chandra Nandi S/O Not Known To The Petitioner Panchayat Secretary, Saruwa Gram Panchayat Under Bounsi Block, Distt.- Banka 6. The Mukhiya Saruwa Gram Panchayat, P.S.- Bounsi, Distt.- Banka ---------------------------------- 3 16.12.2011 In this writ application, the order of the appellate Authority passed on 10.02.2010 in Case No.775/30.09.2009 (Annexure-6) is under challenge, by which the representation of the petitioner filed, in terms of the order dated 08.09.2009 passed in the earlier writ application of the petitioner, has been rejected. From the order impugned, it appears that the Appellate Authority had simply accepted the stand of the Panchayat Secretary/Mukhiya that on the date of counselling 161 candidates had appeared, whose signatures were available in the counselling register, but the petitioner did not appear. Hence after holding the 2 counselling, the candidates selected were appointed. The Appellate Authority has observed that the petitioner’s qualification was Up-Shastri which could not be treated as Intermediate and the Department had filed an LPA in the Court in the matter. Hence, it was held that till this Court did not take any final decision in the matter petitioner could not be considered for appointment. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that, on the date fixed for hearing before the Authority, the petitioner had appeared and had filed the copy of the entire records, obtained by her under R.T.I. Act, and had specifically pointed out that in the counselling only 12 candidates were shown to have appeared, who only were appointed by the Employment Agency. He had also specifically mentioned in his petition, as contained in Annexure-4, that there was interpolation in the counselling register. Photocopies of the list of candidates prepared by the Employment Agency in the counselling register has 3 been annexed as Annexure- 4/1 and the copy of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents in an earlier writ application of one Sarita Kumari and others, along with which also a list of candidates was annexed, has been produced in this case as Annexure-5. From the photocopy of a list of candidates produced by the petitioner on the records of this case as Annexure-4/1, it does appear that there is some substance in the stand of the petitioner as taken before the Appellate Authority through her application dated 18.12.2009 annexed as Annexure-4 with the writ application. In the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the said stand of the petitioner ought to have been noticed and considered by the Appellate Authority and the same ought to have been examined in the light of photocopy of the records produced by the petitioner and petitioner should have been given opportunity to explain her stand in reference to entries made by the Panchayat authorities in the 4 merit list of candidates. The Appellate Authority has failed to do that and has simply relied upon the stand of the Panchayat Secretary and Mukhiya and has rejected the representation of the petitioner. Thus, the Appellate Authority has clearly failed to exercise his jurisdiction vested in him as a statutory authority. As a consequence, the order of the Appellate Authority is held unsustainable in law and the same is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Appellate Authority which is directed to give opportunity to the petitioner to explain discrepancies in the merit list prepared by the Panchayat authorities from the photocopies of the list obtained by her under R.T.I. Act. Thereafter, the Appellate Authority shall consider the stand of the petitioner and any reply of the Panchayat authorities to the same and shall pass fresh orders in the matter in accordance with law, positively within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 5 So far as degree of UP-Shastri obtained from Darbhanga University is concerned, one learned Singled Judge has held the same as valid and equivalent to Intermediate. Till any contrary judgment of any Higher/Superior Court is rendered in the matter, the said order of the learned Single Judge is operative and should be held as valid for compliance by all concerned. Arvind/ ( J.N. Singh, J.)