IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.913 of 2010 DILIP KUMAR S/O BUNDI LAL PANDIT, R/O VILL- LAXMIPUR, P.O AND P.S- MEHUNS, DISTT- SHEIKHPURA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT, OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SHEIKHPURA 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, SHEIKHPURA 5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, GHAT KUSUMBHA BLOCK, DISTT- SHEIKHPURA 6. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, BLOCK- GHAT KUSUMBHA, DISTT- SHEIKHPURA 7. THE DISTRICT TEACHER'S APPOINTMENT APELLATE AUTHORITY, SHEIKHPURA 8. THE MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, MAFO, BLOCK- GHAT KUSUMBHA 9. THE PANCHAYAT SEVAK-CUM-SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ MAFO, BLOCK- GHAT KUSUMBHA, DISTT- SHEIKHPURA 10. AJIT KUMAR S/O SHANKAR PANDIT R/O VILL- FARIDPUR, PO AND P.S- MEHWNS, DISTT- SHEIKHPURA, AT PRESENT POSTED AS ASSISTANT TEACEHR, LAXMIPUR, BLOCK-GHAT KUSUMBHA, DISTT- SHEIKHPURA ----------- 04. 03.12.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the State and counsel for private respondent No.10. The claim of the petitioner that the impugned order contained in Annexure-8 is required to be interfered with because a wrong finding has been arrived at by the Member of the Tribunal holding that the petitioner did not participate in the counselling, is wrong because he had been pursuing the matter with the respondents all along with a claim of rightful place of appointment since he had more marks than the private respondent. The petitioner has failed to bring out any decisive material 2 in support of such a claim because a finding of fact rendered by the Tribunal cannot be upset in a casual fashion, more so when the matter is being examined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Mere assertion on the issue may not be good enough. The Tribunal has dealt with the issue in appeal including the fact which is being raised now and the findings recorded therein have not been established to be wrong or contrary to records in any manner. In view of the same and also in absence of any major legal infirmity having been pointed out, no interference is warranted with the decision of the Tribunal. The writ application is dismissed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)