IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14014 of 2010 1. BIJENDRA KUMAR SINGH S/O SATYENDRA NARAYAN SINGH R/O VILL SAKRA PAHARPUR, P.S.BAKHTIYARPUR, DISTT-SAHARSA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SAHARSA 4. THE DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER SAHARSA 5. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER SAHARSA 6. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION OFFICER SAHARSA 7. THE SUB DIVISIONAL EDUCATION OFFICER SIMRI BAKHTIYARPUR, SUB DIVISION-SIMRI BAKHTIYARPUR, DISTT-SAHARSA 8. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER SIMRI BAKHTIYARPUR, SUB DIVISION, SIMRI BAKHTIYARPUR, DISTT-SAHARSA 9. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER SIMRI BAKHTIYARPUR, SUB DIVISION-SIMRI BAKHTIYARPUR, DISTT-SAHARSA 10. PAHARPUR GRAM PANCHAYAT THROUGH PANCHAYAT SECRETARY PAHARPUR, P.S.SIMRI BAKHTIYARPUR, DISTT-SAHARSA 11. MUKHIYA , PAHARPUR GRAM PANCHAYAT P.S.SIMRI BAKHTIYARPUR, DISTT-SAHARSA 12. PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, PAHARPUR GRAM PANCHAYAT AT PAHARPUR P.S. SIMRI BAKHTIYARPUR, DISTT-SAHARSA 13. CHANDRAHAS KUMAR S/O SRI UPENDRA TANTI R/O VILL SAKRA PAHARPUR TOLA, 'D', P.S.SIMRI BAKHTIYARPUR, DISTT-SAHARSA ----------- 2 15/04/2011 Based on the earlier direction of the High Court passed in a writ application as well as an observation made in the contempt application, present writ - 2 - application has been filed challenging annexure-6 which is a purported order passed by the Block Development Officer, Simri Bakhtiarpur exercising power as an appellate authority then. Grievance of the petitioner was that his claim for appointment was rejected on a pretext that he had not furnished marks sheet of Intermediate along with his application and that was the reason for his non consideration or inclusion of his name in the merit list at the time of appointment as a Panchayat teacher. It was also submitted that it was for a purpose because the officials of the Gram Panchayat wanted to maneuver in favour of their kiths and kin. The Court cannot go by assertions and submissions not supported by evidence in this regard. Since a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution is an extraordinary jurisdiction, which is to be exercised on the basis of evidence and material brought on record, there is nothing to show that the finding given by the Block Development Officer, after perusal of the records of the Gram Panchayat and the application is not correct. There is no evidence to support that the petitioner had - 3 - furnished the marks sheet of Intermediate in which he had obtained 63.11 % marks. Learned counsel for the petitioner tries to place reliance on a document contained in annexure-4/1. He submits that there is an endorsement made on the margin of the said application to show that the petitioner had filed his matriculation and Intermediate marks sheet along with the application. Surprisingly, this application of the petitioner does not carry any date nor does the endorsement carry the year of receiving. Other supporting documents contained in annexure-4 series, all have dates endorsed on the application but this application does not indicate as to when this endorsement was made. The Court is of the opinion that this could be a begotten document only to make out a case in the writ application because the application filed by the petitioner without any date and endorsement without any year does not help the petitioner in making out a case that he had actually filed the marks sheet of Intermediate at the time of making application. Failure of the petitioner to bring un-impeachable evidence on record against the finding recorded in - 4 - annexure-6, no case for interference is made out with such a finding. This writ application has no merit. It is dismissed accordingly. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)