IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13205 of 2008 SHILPI KUMARI, D/O SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR, R/O VILLAGE-SURSAND, P.O. AND P.S.-SURSAND, DISTRICT-SITAMARHI. ………………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MOTIHARI, DISTRICT EAS CHAMPARAN. 5. THE DEPTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER-CUM- CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT EDUCATION ESTABLISHMENT COMMITTEE, MOTIHARI, DISTRICT-EAST CHAMPARAN. 6. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, MOTIHARI, DISTRICT-EAST CHAMPARAN. 7. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL EDUCATION OFFICER, SIKARAHANA, DISTRICT-EAST CHAMPARAN. 8. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, BANKATWA, DISTRICT-EAST CHAMPARAN. 9. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, BANKATWA, DISTRICT-EAST CHAMPARAN. 10.M.ALI HASSAN, S/O LATE NASIR DEWAN, R/O VILLAGE-JAGIRAHA KAMRAULA, P.S.-LAKHAURA, DISTRICT-EAST CHAMPARAN, THE MUKHIYA OF GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ GOLA PAKARIA, ANCHAL-BANKATWA, DISTRICT-EAST CHAMPARAN. 11.SHRI RAM NARESH SINGH, THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY OF GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ GOLA PAKARIA, ANCHAL-BANKATWA, DISTRICT-EAST CHAMPARAN. ………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 3 26.08.2010 This case involves a highly disputed question of fact. Petitioner’s claim is that her application for appointment as Panchayat Teacher was accepted and she was called for counseling. Counseling in respect of this Panchayat was held on 12.10.2006. She claims that whole day she was sitting outside the office of the Panchayat. Her stand is that she appeared in the counseling, but she was not called, her certificates were 2 not examined and another candidate with lesser marks was selected for appointment. In support of her appearance, she relies on one document, annexed as Annexure-5, on which there is endorsement of one Md. Naimuddin. The petitioner had moved this Court earlier and this Court by order passed in CWJC No. 1780 of 2007 on 16.05.2007 granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the District Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari and the District Magistrate was directed to dispose of the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months. The representation of the petitioner has been disposed of by the District Magistrate vide Annexure-15. The District Magistrate has found that the contention of the petitioner that she had appeared in the counseling, but her name was not included in the select list, was not established. He has found the contention of the respondents that the petitioner had absented herself from counseling as correct. So far as endorsement of Md. Naimuddin (Annexure-5) is concerned, it is recorded in the order that pairvikar of the petitioner forcibly got endorsement of Md. Naimuddin on that receipt. The petitioner had not put her appearance in the register of counseling. In view of these facts the representation of the petitioner has been rejected. 3 Apparently, these are highly disputed questions of fact. Therefore, this Court is unable to consider the same in a writ jurisdiction. Petitioner has liberty to approach the District Appellate Authority against the said order of the District Magistrate and produced her evidence that, in fact, she had appeared in the counseling and she had participated in the same. If such an appeal is filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority shall consider the same in accordance with law and dispose of the same preferably within time limit fix by the Rules for disposal of such appeals without being prejudiced by the order passed by the District Magistrate. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the merits of the claims of the petitioner. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)