IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9583 of 2009 ***** Ajay Paswan, S/o Shri Maljeet Paswan, resident of village+P.O.-Dumri, P.S.-Govindpur, District- Nawadah, Mukhiya of Panchayat Raj-Dumri within the District of Nawada. …. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The District Magistrate, Nawadah. 3. The Appellate Tribunal for District Teachers Employment, Nawadah. 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Nawadah. 5. The Block Development Officer-cum-Appellate Authority, Roh, constituted under the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Employment & Service Conditions) Rules, 2006. 6. Krishna Ballabh Singh, S/o Late Ramswaroop Singh, resident of village+P.O.-Bilari, P.S.- Katri Sarai, District-Nalanda. …. …. Respondents ----------- 2. 12.8.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner is the Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat in question, who has challenged the order dated 20.6.2009 passed by the appellate authority constituted for resolution of disputes of appointment of teachers. The impugned order is Annexure-3 to the writ application. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the appellate authority has misconstrued certain documents to come to a conclusion which is otherwise not borne out from the records and that legal infirmity needs to be set aside by interference in the writ application. It is also submitted that the appellate authority had no jurisdiction to entertain an application for an appointment for the year 2006. Learned counsel for the State submits that there is a categorical finding of interpolation in the records in appointment of teachers to the Gram Panchayat in question. The matter has been examined in detail by the appellate authority and the finding and instances - 2 - of interpolation has emerged has also been recorded. If that is finding of fact in this regard then there is no occasion for this Court to interfere or getting into the nitty gritty of that finding. Not only this the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal had no authority to go into the appointment of the year 2006 is also misplaced because thereafter decision has been taken vesting the appellate authority with requisite power to entertain such applications as well as decide such disputes. The writ application has no merit. It is dismissed. Pawan/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)