IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17242 of 2010 GEETA KUMARI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2 11.05.2011 Annexure 10 is the order of the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority Begusarai, by virtue of which the Appellate Authority has rejected the claim of the petitioner for appointment on the post of a Panchayat Teacher on the ground that petitioner has no case for appointment as a teacher on the ground that the respondent authorities had deliberately ignored her rightful claim for appointment, despite having higher marks, accommodating yet another candidate with the lesser marks . The finding of the Appellate Authority’s that the petitioner and her sister Nitu Kumari were looking for engagement or employment next to their village in Ganpataul Panchayat. One sister had been offered employment and the present petitioner, too was waiting for a decision from somewhere. That is the circumstance under which she did not ultimately give her consent for appointment and the next person on the merit list came to be appointed. Contention of the counsel on behalf of the petitioner is that there was no information with regard to the date, time and place for giving consent because she did not get information on this score. But the same is rebutted by a finding given by the 2 Appellate Authority, based on evidence produced that information was sent to one and all including petitioner by U.P.C. Even otherwise the Court can notice the fact that date for counseling for appointments was uniformly notified publicly in this regard. Non receipt of information as such cannot be accepted on the face value. In absence of any unimpeachable evidence which could belie the finding given by the Appellate Authority, the Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The writ application is dismissed. Namita ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)