IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6981 of 2010 MD. TANWIR ALAM S/O MD. IDRIS R/O VILL.- MANDAR, P.S. MORKAHI, DISTT.- KHAGARIA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SAHARSA 4. MEMBER, DISTRICT TEACHERS EMPLOYMENT APPELLATE AUTHORITY, SAHARSA 5. DISTT. SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, SAHARSA 6. DISTT. EDUCATION OFFICER, SAHARSA 7. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SOUR BAZAR, SAHARSA 8. BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, SOUR BAZAR, SAHARSA 9. PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT SUHATH BLOCK- SOUR BAZAR, DISTT.- SAHARSA 10. MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT SUHATH BLOCK- SOUR BAZAR, SAHARSA 11. MD. MUSLIM S/O MD. KHALIL R/O VILL. AND POST- TARIYAMA, P.S. SIMRI BAKHTIARPUR, DISTT.- SAHARSA ----------- 02. 19.1.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. In the totality of the situation and the findings which have been given by the appellate authority, there is a clear finding that the petitioner had been accommodated at the cost of Md. Muslim, the private respondent. The narration in the order by itself indicates how the petitioner came to be accommodated when having less marks than Md. Muslim and in these circumstances, the appellate authority has to intervene and direct the appointment of private respondent. I do not find any illegality in the discussion or the findings given in the impugned order. The nicety which is sought to be urged at the bar is not going to change the basic finding recorded therein. The writ application is dismissed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)