IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14041 of 2007 SHAKIL AHMAD, S/o Md. Zahid Anwar, resident of village- Bararo, Post Office- Kanki, Police Station and District- Kishanganj…………………………….Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Director , Primary Education, Govt of Bihar, Secretariat Building, Patna-1 3. The District Magistrate, Kishanganj 4. The Nodal Officer , District Public Grievance Cell, Kishanganj 5. The District Superintendent of Education , Kishanganj 6. The Subdivisional Education Officer, Kishanganj 7. The Block Development Officer , Kishanganj 8. The Block Welfare Officer 9. The Mahigaon Panchayat Raj, village-Mahigaon, Post office- Chakiya, Police Station and District-Kishanganj through its Mukhiya, Mustaque Alam 10. The Panchayat Secretary, Mahigaon Panchayat Raj village- Mahigaon, Post office- Chakiya, Police Station and District- Kishanganj 11. The Halka Karamchari office of the Circle Officer, Kishanganj 12. Md. Shamshad Alam, son of late Abdus Subhan resident of village- Jonanjay, P.O. Kanki, P.S.- and District-Kishanganj ………………….Respondents. 2. 02.03.2009 Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the respondents-state. Petitioner has filed this application for quashing the selection list so far it relates to respondent No. 12 and also for quashing the order dated 19.9.2007 passed by the Block Development Officer –cum- appellate authority of Teachers’ appointment, Kishanganj whereby complaint made by the petitioner regarding appointment of respondent No. 12 has been rejected. Petitioner’s case is that against the vacancies advertised for the post of Panhayat teachers, he as well as respondent No. 12 & others applied for the post of Urdu teacher - 2 - as both have qualification of Moulvi. The petitioner is claiming that he applied against backward reserved post but the respondent No.12 had applied against unreserved category post. At the time of counselling also, respondent No. 12 had not supplied his caste certificate but ignoring everything, respondent No. 12 was appointed against the backward reserved category post of Urdu teacher. Further allegation has been made by the petitioner regarding forgery committed by respondent No. 12 in the caste certificate. In support of this contention, the letter issued under the signature of Vijay Kumar Sinha, advocate and by notary public , Kishangsanj has been annexed as Annexure-5. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the District Magistrate, Kishanganj (respondent No. 3), the Nodal Officer, District Public Grievance Cell, Kishanganj (respondent no. 4) as well as Block Development Officer , Kishanganj (respondent No.7). In the counter affidavit, it has been denied that respondent No. 12 had applied for his appointment against unreserved category. It has been stated that respondent No. 12 had applied against the reserved (backward category) post and it was mentioned in his application initially filed in the office of Block Development Officer, Kishanganj. In support of the statement, the initial application filed by the respondent No. 12 has been annexed as Annexure-8. Further it has been stated that respondent No. 12 participated in the counselling held on - 3 - 26.02.2007. At the relevant time, he could not produce his caste certificate as it was still in process. He filed an application for allowing him sometime for producing the caste certificate. The selection committee allowed six days’ time to the respondent No. 12 for producing caste certificate. It has also been stated that selection committee is empowered for providing such time in the light of the direction of the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Human Resources Development Department , Govt of Bihar vide letter No. 391C/ 08.9.2006. Respondent No. 12 thereafter, within the time allowed, produced his caste certificate. It has also been stated that besides respondent No. 12’s application for appointment against reserved category in the merit list also he is above than other candidates. He is at serial No. 15 of the merit list having 836 marks so far petitioner is concerned, he is at serial No. 20/A of the merit having 789 marks. On perusal of the merit list, it transpires that name of the petitioner has subsequently been added as 20/A though he is below serial No. 22. This seems a case of interpolation. So far the allegation regarding forgery and filing wrong affidavit is concerned, I find that in the order passed by the Block Development Officer, it is specifically mentioned that the letter issued by advocate, Vijay Kumr Sinha was produced where the advocate concerned stated that he was forced to sign the letter which has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ application. - 4 - The petitioner has placed reliance on the orders of District Magistrate and District Superintendent of Education. The concerned appointment was made under Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Appointment, service condition) Rules, 2006. Under rule 18 of 2006 rules, the Block Development Officer is empowered to receive, entertain any application/objection regarding appointment, transfer, service conditions of teachers’ appointed under 2006 rules. The District Magistrate of the district although a superior authority, is not authorized for entertaining any such application or for issuance of any direction regarding any enquiry in this regard. Besides this, the counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the District Magistrate also besides Respondents No. 4 & 7. In this view also, reliance placed by the petitioner on any order/letter issued by the District Magistrate is of no relevance. Considering all these fats, I do not find any reason for quashing the order dated 19.9.2006 by the Block Development Officer holding that also respondent No. 12 was legal and there was no reason for cancel the same. This application is dismissed. AKV/ (Mridula Mishra,J.)