IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12072 of 2010 DHIRENDRA NARAYAN OJHA, S/O Sri Lokendra Narayan Ojha, R/O Village Brahampur, P.S.- Brahmpur, Distt- Buxar. ……Petitioner. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ……Opp. Party. Versus 1. The State of Bihar (through Principal Secretary-cum- Commissioner, Human Resources, Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, Office, New Secretariat, Building, Baily Road, Patna-1. 2. The Secretary, District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Buxar. 3. The District Magistrate, Buxar. 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Buxar./ 5. The Block Development Officer, Brahmpur Block, Distt- Buxar. 6. The District Education Extension Officer, Brahmpur, Distt- Buxar. 7. Smt. Sharda Devi Wife of Chandrama Pal Mukhiya of Brahmpur, Gram Panchayat, Distt- Buxar. 8. The Panchayat Secretary of Brahmpur, Gram Panchayat, Distt- Buxar. 9. Shailendra Paswan son of not known. 10. Geeta Devi, W/O Shiv Prasad Sah. 11. Mansoor Alam, S/O Manjoor Alam. 12. Rajnish Singh, S/O Badari Singh. 13. Upendra Singh son of not known. 14. Bibi Kumari, D/O Lalan Ram. 15. Kusum Kumari, D/O Binayak Dutta Pathak. 16. Asha Kumari, D/O Shri Niwas Yadav. 17. Rashmi Kumari, D/O Shri Niwash Yadav. 18. Sunita Sharma, D/O Devbrat Sharma. 19. Jyoti Kumari Singh, D/O Ashok Kumar Singh. 20. Md. Shamim, S/O Jubair 21. Awadhesh Kr. Ram, S/O Jhagru Ram. 22. Raj Kumar Sharma, S/O Tarkeshwar Sharma. 23. Jitendra Kr., S/O Baban Prasad. 24. Anil Kumar Singh, S/O Chandra Mohan Singh. 25. Nagendra Kumar Singh, S/O Shiv Shankar Yadav. No. 9 to 25 are R/O Vill- Barhampur, P.S.- Barhampur, Distt- Buxar. …..Respondents. - 2 - ----------- 2 25.03.2011 Petitioner has made a frontal attack on the impugned order contained in Annexure-1 passed by the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Buxar, describing it to be cryptic and vague, based on materials which was not even available before the appellate authority. There is hardly any discussion on the complaint made by the petitioner as is apparent from the order of the appellate authority. Irrespective of the adjudication, which has been made by the appellate authority when the Court put a pointed question on his participation of appointment process, counsel for the petitioner has no other material or evidence to show which would belie the findings given by the appellate authority. Except for an application contained in Annexure 2 which the petitioner alleges is the receipt issued by the Gram Panchyat showing receipt of his application, there is no other material to show that his name was included in the merit list or any call for counseling was made. A vague kind of allegation cannot form the basis - 3 - for a finding to be given by the appellate authority. A roving or fishing enquiry is not the duty of the appellate authority. It is the duty of the complainant to first establish his case. The Court has gone through the documents which have been annexed with the writ application. None of these documents in any manner belies the findings given by appellate authority and there is no evidence so far to support the case except Annexure 2. As for Annexure 2, one cannot even make out if it relates to the Panchayat concerned where the petitioner was an applicant. There is no merit in the writ. It is dismissed. Bhrdwaj/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)