IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8406 of 2011 1. Bharti Kumari, daughter of Dayanand Thakur, resident of Village, P.O.+ P.S. Jalley, District- Darbhanga. 2. Kumar Anupam Singh, son of Ganesh Singh, resident of Village- Jogiara, P.S. Jalley, District- Darbhanga ----- Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary Human Resources Department, Government of Bihar. 3. The Director (Primary Education), Bihar, Patna. 4. The District Magistrate, Darbhanga. 5. The District Panchayat Officer, Darbhanga. 6. The District Superintendent of Education, Darbhanga. 7. The Block Development Officer, Jalley, Darbhanga. 8. The Block Education Officer, Jalley. 9. The Panchayat Secretary, Jalley. 10. Kaishar Naz, D/O Shaukat Ali, resident of Village Nagardih, P.O.+ P.S. Jalley, District-Darbhanga. 11. The Mukhia Gram Panchayat Raj Kazi Bahera Prakhand, Jalley, District- Darbhanga. 12. Ramakant Singh, son of Umeshwar Choudhary, resident of Village- Kurshi Madhopur, P.O. Chunni, P.S. Madhopura, District-Madhubani ----- Respondents. ------------ 2. 13.5.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned Assistant Counsel to Additional Advocate General No.13. This writ petitioner is directed against the order dated 14.8.2010 (Annexure-5), passed by the District Teacher Employment Appellate Tribunal, Balbhadrapur, Laheriasarai, Darbhanga, in Objection Case No.446 of 2009 (Rakiba Khatoon Vrs. Block Development Officer, Jalley). The two petitioners seek a direction to the 2 Jalley Panchayat that they should be appointed as Panchayat Shikshak. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It appears to us that the two petitioners had participated in the selection process for appointment as Panchayat Shikshak in Jalley Gram Panchayat. In view of their performance they were not included in the select list. However, aggrieved by same, some other candidates preferred appeal before the Tribunal which was registered as Objection Case No.446 of 2009. The same has been allowed, and the persons mentioned in the order have been directed to appoint them as Panchayat Shikshak with all consequential benefits. It appears to us that the petitioners were not included in the merit list in view of their performance. Furthermore, they were not parties to the objection case and have, therefore, no Locus Standi to challenge the impugned order. There is no merit in this writ petition. This writ petition is dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar,J. )