IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5638 of 2010 1. ANJU KUMARI W/O DAYANAND MANDAL R/O MOHALLA- RAGUNATHPUR, BLOCK & P.S.- BHARGAMA, SUB DIVISION- FARBISHGANJ, DISTT.- ARARIA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY H.R.D.D., BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ARARIA, DISTT.- ARARIA 3. THE D.S.E., ARARIA, DISTT.- ARARIA 4. THE B.E.E.O., BHARGAMA, BLOCK & P.S.- BHARGAMA, DISTT.- ARARIA 5. THE B.D.O., BHARGAMA, BLOCK & P.S.- BHARGAMA, DISTT.- ARARIA 6. THE DISTRICT APPELLATE AUTHORITY, 'NIYOJAN OF TEACHER', ARARIA, DISTT.- ARARIA 7. THE MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, RAGHUNATHPUR (SOUTH), BLOCK & P.S.- BHARGAMA, DISTT.- ARARIA ----------- 2 5.8.2010 Petitioner had been selected as Panchayat Teacher, which selection was subsequently challenged along with the selection of several others in the same transaction. The Appellate Tribunal, Araria in Case no. 1 of 2008, by order dated 26.12.2009, while setting aside the selection of various other teachers as well the petitioner’s selection was set aside on the ground that the petitioner was selected with 49.11 marks in the merit list whereas one Suinita Kumari, who was Inter passed with 56.55 marks had not been selected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reason why Sunita Kumari was not selected was because she had been selected at another place and she has been working there regularly. Therefore, she had not turned up and as such the petitioner was selected . Apart from this, in the entire order there 2 is nothing against the petitioner . It is further pointed out correctly that Sunita Kumari ,for the reasons as obvious, had not even complained to the tribunal nor was a party before the tribunal, yet, the petitioner’s selection on that ground has been set aside. Having perused the order of the tribunal, I am satisfied that the order of the tribunal in so far as Anju Kumar (Petitioner) cannot be sustained and it is accordingly set aside. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. singh ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)