IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1660 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 17064 of 2007 With Interlocutory Application No. 7663 of 2011 In Letters Patent Appeal No.1660 of 2011 ====================================================== Nira Kumari, D/O Girishnandan Singh, R/O Village- Basantpatti, P.S.- Purnahia, District- Sheohar (Bihar). .... Petitioner .... Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Commissioner Cum Secretary, Department of Human Resources, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. District Magistrate, Sheohar. 4. D.D.C., Sheohar, District- Sheohar. 5. Block Development Officer, Purnahia, District- Sheohar. 6. Mukhiya, Basantpatti Gram Panchayat, District- Sheohar. 7. Panchayat Secretary, Basantpatti Gram Panchayat, District- Sheohar. 8. Rina Kumari, D/O Ram Ekbal Singh, W/O Sudhir Singh R/O Village- Basantpatti, P.S.- Purnahia, District- Sheohar. .... Respondents .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Singh and Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Advocates For the Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 : Mr. Rakesh Prabhat, A.C. to G.P.-17 For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rishiraj Sinha, G.P.-19 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2 14-11-2011 Re: I.A. No. 7663 of 2011 The delay of two days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Patna High Court LPA No.1660 of 2011 (2) dt.14-11-2011 2 / 3 2 Appeal is condoned. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Re: L.P.A. No.1660 of 2011 This Appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent is preferred by the writ petitioner against the judgment and order dated 9th September 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in above CJWC No. 17064 of 2007. The matter at dispute is the termination of service of the appellant, a Panchayat Shikshak. The appointment of the appellant was challenged by the respondent no. 8 on the premise that though the respondent no. 8 had secured higher marks than the appellant, she had been kept out of selection by not informing about the date of counselling. Her complaint made before the appellate authority constituted under Rule 18 of the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teachers (Service and Conditions) Rule, 2006 was accepted. Consequently, the appointment of the appellant was cancelled. The challenge to the order of the appellate authority before the learned single Judge has failed. Therefore, the present Appeal. The learned single Judge has categorically recorded that “the petitioner was sought to be favoured despite having lower marks and position in merit list.” Learned Advocate Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Singh has appeared for the appellant. He has submitted that the respondent no. 8 has secured employment as Panchayat Teacher in another school. The post being vacant, the appellant may be allowed to continue on the said post. We are unable to agree with Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Singh. If the appellant had been unduly favoured, the cancellation of appointment was justified. The same can not be interfered with. If at all the post is vacant, the same shall be filled in in accordance with the recruitment rules. Patna High Court LPA No.1660 of 2011 (2) dt.14-11-2011 3 / 3 3 We see no merit in this Appeal. Appeal is dismissed in limine. B.Tiwary/Anjani/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)