IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18545 of 2009 1. GEETA KUMARI W/O RAM NAGINA PRASAD, D/O SITARAM SAH R/O BHALUAHA, P.O. HANUMAN NAGAR (MADHESARA) P.S. SONBARSA, DISTT.- SITAMARHI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE D.S.E., SITAMARHI 5. THE B.E.E.O., CHOURAUT SITAMARHI 6. THE B.D.O. CHOURAUT SITAMARHI 7. THE DISTRICT TEACHER APPOINTMENT APPELLATE AUTHORITY SITAMARHI 8. THE MUKHIYA GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ CHOURAUT WEST, SITAMARHI 9. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ CHORAUT WEST, SITAMARHI 10. SHAKUNTALA KUMARI W/O RAMESH KUMAR MAHTO R/O VILL.- CHANDRA SAIRA, P.O.- CHORAUT, P.S. PUPRI, DISTT. SITAMARHI ----------- 02/ 28.04.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel appearing for the State. Petitioner’s case is that her merit was not considered by the respondents at the time of appointment on the post of Panchayat teacher and respondent no. 10 having lesser marks than the petitioner was appointed. The process of appointment was initiated in 2006 and as stated by the petitioner it completed in the year, 2008. When the appointment letter was issued the petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal, Sitamarhi and that has been dismissed by order dated 27.11.2009 passed in Case No. 15 of 2008. Finding - 2 - recorded by the tribunal is that petitioner could not produce original certificates of educational qualification on the date of counselling before the Appointment Committee. On the other hand, the petitioner’s plea is that on the receipt, earlier issued in her favour by the Panchayat Secretary, at the time of accepting her application for appointment, an endorsement had been made regarding production of original documents, on the date of counselling, indicating that all original documents were produced by her on the date of counselling. Counsel for the petitioner, when questioned, whether this document was produced by the petitioner, before the Tribunal, the answer is in negative. Since the most relevant document, upon which the reliance is being placed by the petitioner, was not produced before the Tribunal, it seems that the initials on that receipt have been subsequently obtained and on the basis of manufactured document, petitioner is claiming for her appointment. I do not find any merit in this application. It is dismissed. DKS/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)