THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13479 of 2010 Nitish Kumar, S/o-Sri Bipin Kumar, Resident of Village-Tari Dabil, P.S.-Khaira, P.O.-Dabil, District-Jamui. –Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The District Magistrate, Jamui. 3. The District Superintendent of Education, Jamui. 4. The Block Development Officer, Khaira, Jamui. 5. The Block Education Extension Officer, Khaira, Jamui. 6. The Panchayat Sachiv, Gram Panchayat Raj Kageshwar, Block-Khaira, District-Jamui. 7. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Kageshwar, Block-Khaira, District-Jamui. 8. Rajnish Kumar Tilak, S/o- Jai Narain Singh, R/o-Vill.-Kewal, Fariyat, P.S.- Khaira, District-Jamui. –Respondents. ----------- Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. Surendra Kishore Thakur. Mr. Satya Prakash Parasar. Counsel for the State : AAG-3. Counsel for the Resp. No.8: Mr. Pramod Kumar. Mr. Bhavesh Kumar. ------------- 4 18.11.2010 Respondent no.8 has appeared pursuant to notice issued by this Court. Heard the parties and with their consent the writ petition is being disposed of. This matter relates to recruitment of Primary Panchayat Teacher. In the year 2007, pursuant to advertisement issued and applications received, a merit list was prepared. In the merit list, admittedly, petitioner was above, which respondent no.8 does not challenge on 24.10.2007, which was the date fixed for counselling. What is done in counselling is only verification of testimonials of and consent to join. These are only paper work for completing the formality of appointment. It appears that for some reason the selection committee did not close the counselling on that date and immediately decided to hold a fresh counselling. It is averred that some members were - 2 - unwell and could not participate the whole time. Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that subsequently news paper notice was issued and 13.11.2007 was the date fixed for the counselling. After proceeding through the formalities of counselling to this adjourned date the petitioner was appointed. It appears that respondent no.8 then moved this Court wherein ultimately the writ petition was disposed of with an observation permitting the petitioner to move the Tribunal which had then to be constituted. Accordingly, respondent no.8 filed the present appeal being Appeal No.19 of 2009 before the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Tribunal, Jamui in which by the impugned order dated 30.6.2010 the Tribunal has set aside the selection and appointment of petitioner on the ground that there was no justification for shifting the date of counselling and, as such, selection of petitioner was bad. Accordingly, Tribunal directed the appointment of respondent no.8, treating that on 24.10.2007, the first date of counselling, petitioner was being absent. In my view, this is a hyper technical view taken by the Tribunal. The Selection Committee has the jurisdiction to select the person and to take decision to adjourn the matter, as noted above this was duly notified in the press. Counselling is nothing but mere paper formality. There were neither interviews held nor any selection test done. The Selection Committee chose the most meritorious person from the merit list. The Tribunal, thus, ought not to have interfered with in the matter. The Selection Committee - 3 - did not show any undue favour to the petitioner, who was admittedly more meritorious than respondent no.8. In that view of the matter, I am unable to sustain the order of the Tribunal. The same is set aside. It would be deemed that petitioner was continuing in service for all purposes and the order of the Tribunal and consequential order are also rendered of no effect. The status quo as obtaining before the order of the Tribunal shall be restored forthwith. With the above aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Namita (Navaniti Prasad Singh,J)