IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2378 of 2007 MD.NOOR HASAN, Son of Abdul Kayum, resident of village Mirjapur, P.O. Jagannathpur, P.S. Biraul, District Darbhanga. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Commissioner Cum Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development, Bihar, Patna. 2. The District Magistrate, Darbhanga. 3. The District Superintendent of Education, Darbhanga. 4. The Block Education Extension Officer, Biraul, District Darbhanga. 5. The Block Development Officer, Biraul, District Darbhanga. 6. Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Ramnagar, Block Biraul, District Darbhanga. 7. Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Ramnagar, block Biraul, District Darbhanga. 8. Abdul Khalik Kadri, son of Md. Islamuddin kadri, Resident of village Ekamba, P.S. Ekamba, District Begusrai. ----------- 2 28.09.2010 Having heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State as with regard to the following grievance of the petitioner raised in this writ application:- “i.Issuance of an appropriate writ or writs in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Urdu teacher in the category of most backward class as he has 67.45% marks when the wrongly appointed person (Respondent no.8) had only 53.25% marks only but the Respondents Mukhiya due to some other consideration did not appoint the petitioner. ii.Issuance of writ or writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the appointment of Respondent no.8 namely Abdul Khalik Kadri who has been appointed on the post of Urdu teacher when he has only 53.25% marks.” this Court would find that the petitioner’s grievance as against respondent no.8 by way of appointment on the post of Urdu Panchayat Shikshak, in the first instance has to be gone into by the District Teachers Appellate Authority. That being so, this application is permitted to be withdrawn with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the District 2 Teachers Appellate Authority and in case the petitioner files his complaint the said authority shall decide the same after giving an opportunity of hearing to respondent no.8 in accordance with law. It goes without saying that if complaint is filed by the petitioner the same shall be disposed of on merits without going into the question of delay in filing such complaint by the petitioner. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)