IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4153 of 2010 1. MD. TANJEER ALAM S/O MD. BAHARUDDIN R/O VILL.- BHANSIA, P.S.- MAHALGAON, DISTT.- ARARIA AT PRESENT POSTED AS PANCHAYAT TEACHER IN NAVSIRJIT (NEWLY CREATED) PRIMARY SCHOOL RAHIKA TOLA, BHANSIA WITHIN GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ BHANSIA UNDER JOKIHAT BLOCK IN THE DISTT.- ARARIA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY H.R.D. (EDUCATION), BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR (P.E.) H.R.D. NEW SECRETARIAT, BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE ARARIA 5. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION ARARIA 6. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER JOKIHAT, DISTT.- ARARIA 7. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER JOKIHAT, DISTT.- ARARIA 8. THE MUKHIA-CUM-CHAIRMAN OF THE PANCHAYAT TEACHER EMPLOYMENT COMMITTEE GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ- BHANSIA, BLOCK JOKIHAT, DISTT.- ARARIA 9. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY-CUM-SECRETARY PANCHAYAT TEACHER EMPLOYMENT COMMITTEE GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ ----------- 2 5.7.2010 Petitioner has been removed by the order of District Superintendent of Education. The petitioner was selected and appointed to the post of Panchayat Teacher. A complaint was made to District Superintendent of Education, who issued show cause to the Panchayat concerned as to how appointment was made by the Selection Committee. Panchayat responded and consequent whereto the order has been passed by the District Superintendent of Education directing removal of the petitioner. Petitioner has challenged the same on the ground that the District Superintendent of Education had no authority to direct the Selection Committee to cancel the selection of the petitioner. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that either it was the Block Development Officer as per original rule 18 or the District Panchayat Teachers Appellate Authority in terms of rule 18, as amended . Having considered the matter, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. The detailed ground, as noted by the District Superintendent of Educaion, as contained in Annexure 1 clearly shows that how the Appointment Committee had manipulated the appointment. It had shown that notices have been sent to other candidates under certificates of posting and ultimately when no body turned up, petitioner is appointed. The procedure is unique . The candidates are of the same village or neighbouring village who could not be noticed through messenger. The UPC did not inspire confidence and rightly so. The petitioner managed to get his appointment by other than bonafide candidate. No doubt the District Superintendent of Education had no authority to interfere but it is well settled that if by speaking order on the ground of it being illegal another illegal action is revived, the court refuses to interfere as on basis of illegality, an illegal selection cannot be permitted to continue. In that view of the matter I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. singh ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.) 3