IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.801 of 2009 CHANCHALA DEVI, WIFE OF SRI SHASHI KUMAR BISWAS, R/O VILLAGE NIJHARA, P.S. KADWA, DISTRICT-KATIHAR AT PRESENT PRAMUKH CUM- CHAIRMAN, BLOCK LEVEL TEACHER EMPLOYMENT SAMITTEE, BLOCK KADWA, DISTRICT-KATIHAR. -(RESPONDENT NO.8)-APPELLANT Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DISTRICT TEACHER EMPLOYMENT APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KATIHAR, DISTRICT-KATIHAR. 4. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,KATIHAR, DISTRICT- KATIHAR. 5. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION-CUM- DISTRICT PROGRAMM CONVENER, KATIHAR, DISTRICT-KATIHAR. 6. BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, KADWA, KATIHAR, DISTRICT-KATIHAR. 7. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, KADWA, KATIHAR, DISTRICT-KATIHAR. 8. AVINASH KUMAR, S/O DR. BINODANAND JHA, R/O MOHALLA KRISHNA NAGAR, B.M.P.-7, DISTRICT-KATIHAR. 9. MADAN KUMAR RAY, S/O LATE DEVENDRA NATH RAI, R/O BADWABARI, P.O. BHARRI, P.S. KADWA, DISTRICT-KATIHAR. 10. GITESH KUMAR RAI, S/O SRI LAL KUMAR RAI, R/O VILLAGE KUMHARI, P.S. KADWA, DISTRICT-KATIHAR. _______ For the Appellant : M/s D.K. Sinha, Bhola Prasad, & Jibendra Mishra For the State : Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, Assistant Counsel To S.C.23 2 08.01.2010 Calling in question the legal substantiality of the 2 2 order dated 12th May, 2009 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC no. 5836 of 2009 the present appeal has been preferred under Clause – X of the letters patent. 2. Assailing the correctness of the order, it is submitted by Mr. D.K. Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant that the learned single Judge has committed illegality by setting aside the order dated 09th April, 2009 passed by the appellate authority inasmuch as he rectified the mistake that had occurred in the order dated 25th March, 2009. 3. On a perusal of the order passed by the learned single Judge and that of the appellate authority, it is demonstrable that the said Authority on 25th March, 2009 had passed an order recording the fact that there had been large scale illegality in the counselling for appointment of teachers in the year 2008 in Kadwa Block in the district of Katihar and, therefore, re-counselling was required and, accordingly, he so directed. Thereafter, on 09th April, 2009, which was the subject matter on before the writ Court, he recalled the same. The learned single Judge has expressed the view that the appellate Authority could not have recalled the order as it was functioning as a quasi-judicial body and there was no 3 3 conferral of power of review by the Statute under which he was functioning. As we have indicated earlier that the learned counsel has submitted that it was not a review but a rectification and the same can be done. The aforesaid submission may have some relevance when there is mere rectification of a clerical error but when the decision has been totally overturned by applying the principle of review which has not been conferred on the Authority, the same is totally impermissible. Thus, we perceive no error in the order of the learned single Judge and, accordingly, we concur with the same. 4. Consequently, the letters patent appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed in limine. (Dipak Misra, CJ.) (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.) AAhmad