IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.731 of 2011 In (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE 10571/2010) 1. INDRASHEKHAR PASWAN, S/O SRI NARAYAN PASWAN, R/O VILLAGE MANIKPUR, DISTRICT- ARARIYA. ......Appellant Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE OF ARARIA. 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, ARARIA. 5. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, NARPATGANJ, DISTRICT-ARARIA. 6. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ NABABGANJ ANCHAL- NARPATGANJ, DISTRICT- ARARIA. 7. THE MUKHIYA GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ NABABGANJ ANCHAL- NARPATGANJ, DISTRICT- ARARIA. 8. THE DISTRICT TEACHERS APPOINTMENT APPELLATE AUTHORITY, ARARIA THROUGH ITS MEMBER. 9. SHAMBHU RAJAK, S/O SRI DEV NARAYAN RAJAK, R/O VILLAGE MANIKPUR, P.S. PHOOLKAHA, DISTRICT ARARIA. 10. ASHOK RAM, S/O SRI BRAJ KISHORE RAM, R/O MANIKPUR, P.S. PHOOLKAHA, DISTRICT- ARARIA .......Respondents ---------------------------------- 3 11-08-2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the order under appeal. On going through the submissions, it appears that the appellant lodged a criminal case against the Mukhiya and others concerned for certain offences committed by them. The appellant also approached the 2 District Teachers Appointment Appellate Tribunal with his grievance against the selection process for appointment to the post of Shiksha Mitra in the year 2006. The Tribunal rejected the case of the appellant on account of laches in not having approached the Appellate Authority, the Block Development Officer, at appropriate time and also on the ground that two registers being relied upon by the appellant showed manipulation and it was difficult to hold that such manipulation was of the relevant period and not created subsequently. The writ court has dismissed the writ petition mainly on the ground that a criminal case has been lodged by the appellant. In our view, there is no need to interfere with the dismissal of the writ petition because the dispute involves contested facts and such dispute, in our view, cannot be properly adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. If so advised, the appellant may pursue his remedy before the Civil court. Since we have found no merits in the appeal, 3 hence, no separate order is being passed on the limitation petition which we were inclined to allow. BKS/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)