IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.20297 of 2010 Anamika Kumari, D/o Sri Jawahar Prasad Singh, R/o village Chak Habib, P.O. Gangapur, P.S. Musarigharari, District Samastipur---- petitioner Versus 1.The State of Bihar 2.The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 3.The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna 4.The Member District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Samastipur, District Samastipur 5.The District Magistrate, Samastipur, District Samastipur 6.The District Superintendent of Education, Samastipur, District Samastipur 7.The Block Development Officer, Sarairanjan, District Samastipur 8.The Block Education Officer, Sarairanjan, District Samastipur 9.The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Lat Basepura, P.S.Musarigharari, District Samastipur 10.The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Lat Basepura, P.S.Musarigharari, District Samastipur 11.Mira Kumari, D/o Late Bindeshwar Rai, R/o at + P.O. Kharaj Jitwarpur, P.S.Samastipur(Sadar) District Samastipur, at present working as panchayat teacher at primary school Chainpur, Lat Basepura, Sarairanjan, District Samastipur--------------------respondents ----------- For the petitioner :Mr.Manish Kumar, Advocate For the State :Mr.Binay Kumar, AC to G.P.13 ------ 2. 15.7.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner seeks quashing of the letter dated 22.10.2008 issued by the Mukhiya and Panchayat Secretary of Gram Panchayat Lat Basepura, Block Sarairanjan, District Samastipur by which the petitioner has been removed from the post of Panchayat Teacher and further to quash the order dated 2.8.2010 issued by the 2 District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Samastipur by which the appeal of the petitioner has been rejected and for other consequential reliefs. The matter relates to appointment of Panchayat Teachers under the 2006 Rules. An advertisement was published for appointment on 9 sanctioned vacant posts. The petitioner applied as B.C. (Female) Category. Counseling was first held on 12.2.2007. The petitioner claims to have appeared for the counseling. However, other persons were appointed and as per the records the petitioner was not appointed as she had not appeared for the counseling. The petitioner made a complaint on 28.2.2007 before the Block Development Officer, Samastipur. The B.D.O. instead of acting as the Appellate Authority under Rule 18 of the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teacher(Appointment and Service Condition) Rules, 2006 acted as part of Three Member Enquiry Committee on the direction of the District Magistrate which included D.S.E., Samastipur and the B.D.O. and B.E.E.O., Sarairanjan. The said committee had found certain irregularities in the appointment of the untrained teachers and on the basis of the report earlier appointments were cancelled without 3 giving opportunity to the appointed teachers. Thereafter the B.D.O. at his own level took steps for reappointment and appointed seven teachers including the petitioner. The matter was again raked up before the District Magistrate and another Three Member Committee headed by the Additional Collector(Ceiling) was constituted which gave a report contrary to that of the earlier Three Member Committee. On the basis of the same the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and others and thereafter the petitioner’s appointment was cancelled. The petitioner aggrieved by the said action approached the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority which by the impugned order dated 2.8.2010 rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner and others. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the District Appellate Authority does not consider the fact that the earlier appointments were contrary to the provisions of 2006 Rules. It is further urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had secured second highest marks and thus she ought to have been appointed. It is also submitted that the B.D.O. was the appellate authority at the relevant time and findings 4 recorded by him as a Member of the first committee ought to have been accepted by the Appellate Authority. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that the Appellate Authority has considered all aspects of the matter and the on the basis of the facts and materials on the record come to the conclusion that the petitioner had not appeared for the counseling on 12.2.2007 and thus she was not entitled to be appointed or to challenge the appointments made on the basis of the counseling held on that date. It is submitted that there is clear finding of the District Appellate Authority in this regard. On a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that all the authorities had wrongly proceeded with the matter contrary to the 2006 Rules when the petitioner for the first time made a complaint before the Block Development Officer on 28.2.2007. Yet, since no order was passed by the B.D.O. as the competent authority under Rule 18 at the relevant time, no finding recorded by the B.D.O. as a Member of the Three Member Committee can have any statutory force. The Appellate Authority has also noted the 5 fact that the B.D.O. should have decided the matter as the quasi-judicial authority at the relevant time but he has not done so. However, on the perusal of the impugned order dated 2.8.2010 of the Appellate Authority, I find that all aspects of the matter have been taken into consideration and the Appellate Authority has recorded a clear finding that there is nothing on the record to show that the petitioner had appeared for the counseling held on 12.2.2007 for the first time. That being the position, the petitioner cannot have any claim for appointment on the post even if it is accepted that the petitioner had second highest marks among the candidates. In view of the said findings of the Appellate Authority this Court does not find that the conclusion recorded by the Appellate Authority in dismissing the appeal of the petitioner can be found fault with. Thus, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 2.8.2010 of the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Samastipur. The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. 6 At this stage, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that Vigilance enquiry is going on in the matter with respect to the said appointment and in case the Vigilance Department comes to the conclusion regarding irregularities committed during the course of the appointment then the petitioner may have the liberty to again approach the appropriate authority in support of her claim. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to do so on the conclusion of the Vigilance enquiry. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) Spal/