IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.995 of 2010 In (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE 5791/2009) 1. Mamta Kumari @ Kumari Mamta W/O Shri Umashankar Verma R/O Vill.- Ramganj, P.S.- Khagaria, Distt.- Khagaria .. Appellant. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The District Teacher Appointment Appellate Tribunal Khagaria Through Its Chairman 3. The Member District Teacher Appointment Apellate Tribunal, Khagaria 4. The District Magistrate, Khagaria 5. The District Education Officer, Khagaria 6. The District Superintendent Of Education, Khagaria 7. The Block Education Extension Officer Block Khagaria, Distt.- Khagaria 8. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Ratan Block/P.S./Distt.- Khagaria 9. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Ratan Null Block/P.S./Distt.- Khagaria 10. Shyam Nandan S/O Narshing Prasad R/O Vill.- Dukha Tola, P.S.- Gogari, Distt.- Khagaria … Respondents. 6. The District Superintendent Of Education, Khagaria 7. The Block Education Extension Officer Block Khagaria, Distt.- Khagaria 8. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Ratan Block/P.S./Distt.- Khagaria 9. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Ratan Null Block/P.S./Distt.- Khagaria 10. Shyam Nandan S/O Narshing Prasad R/O Vill.- Dukha Tola, P.S.- Gogari, Distt.- Khagaria … Respondents. ---------------------------------- 5. 25.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the State and perused the order of the writ Court. The respondent no.10 Shyam Nandan raised a grievance against manipulation in selection and appointment of Panchayat Teachers, particularly against 2 the appellant. Ultimately the dispute was examined and decided by the concerned District Teachers Appointment Appellate Tribunal which found that respondent no.10 had higher marks and as per the genuine and original selection made, he had to be appointed against the roster point No.1539 which became available on account of non- joining of one Suresh Mahto who was offered appointment against that roster point. The writ Court has considered the grievance of the appellant who preferred C.W.J.C.No. 5791 of 2009 and has dismissed the writ petition by order under challenge dated 17th March 2010. The writ Court has found that there was, no doubt, manipulation after final selection and in stead of offering the unreserved seat against the roster point No.1539 to the respondent no.10 who had higher marks than the appellant, some changes were made in the selection list so as to show that the appellant was appointed against the roster point No. 1538 available for B.C. female candidates. With the help of charts the writ court has found that in fact, against roster point no. 1538 another B.C. female candidate, namely, Sulekha Kumari was originally selected and appointed and on account of 3 vacancy caused due to non-joining of Suresh Mahto against roster point no.1539, respondent no.10 was entitled for appointment on the basis of higher marks. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant deserves to be appointed because some other persons have taken advantage of fake certificate or degree to go up in the merit list leading to their selection. Such plea is not available to the appellant in the present appeal because no other person was impleaded as private respondent in the writ petition, except respondent no.10 and there is no such grievance against him. Hence we are unable to grant any relief to the appellant. We find no error in the judgment and the order of the writ Court under appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. If the appellant has grievance against other selected candidates that they have entered in service by fraud etc., she may ventilate the grievance before the appropriate authority in accordance with law. Jay/ (Shiva Kirti Singh,J) (Shivaji Pandey, J)