IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4691 of 2008 1. SHOBHA KUMARI, D/O SRI ABHIMANYU URAON, R/O VILLAGE-GORIAR, P.O.-GORIAR, P.S.-TIKAPATTI, VIA-A.G.B. KURSELA, DISTRICT-PURNEA. 2. HEMALATA SINGH, D/O SUBHASH SINGH YADAV, R/O VILLAGE-RUPAULI, P.O. AND P.S.-RUPAULI, VIA- BHAWANIPUR (RAJDHAM), DISTRICT-PURNEA. ……………PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-CHAIRMAN, BIHAR EDUCATION PROJECT COUNCIL, PURNEA. 3. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION- CUM-DISRICT PROGRAMME COORDINATOR, PURNEA. 4. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, RUPAULI, DISTRICT-PURNEA. 5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, BHAWANIPUR, DISTRICT-PURNEA. 6. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, RUPUALI, PURNEA. 7. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, BHAWANIPUR, PURNEA. 8. THE PRESIDENT, VIDYALAYA SIKSHA SAMITI, MIDDLE SCHOOL-CUM-KUSTURBA GANDHI RESIDENTIAL BALIKA VIDYALAYA, RUPAULI, DISTRICT-PURNEA. 9. THE SECRETARY, VIDYALAYA SIKSHA SAMITI, MIDDLE SCHOOL-CUM-KUSTURBA GANDHI RESIDENTIAL BALIKA VIDYALAYA, RUPAULI, DISTRICT-PURNEA. 10.PHUL KUMARI, D/O HARI KISHORE PRASAD SINGH, R/O VILLAGE-RUPAULI, P.O.-RUPAULI, DISTRICT- PURNEA. 11.RANI KUMARI, W/O SANJEEV KUMAR SINGH, R/O VILLAGE-MOHANPUR, P.O.-MOHANPUR, DISTRICT- PURNEA. ………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Shailesh Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr.Rishi Raj Sinha, G.P.-19 and Mr.Rajeev Shekhar, Adv. For respondent no.10: Mr.Sharda Nand Mishra, Adv. For respondent no.11: Mr.Shashi Shekhar, Adv. ------------- 4 18.07.2011 Two petitioners have challenged the 2 appointment of respondent nos.10 and 11 respectively as teachers in the Girls School. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to Annexure-5 and 6, reports of the B.D.O. in respect of each to show that, prima facie, it was found that the petitioners had been illegally denied appointment and the respondent nos. 10 and 11 had been wrongly appointed. He submits that the petitioners had filed complaint in the District Public Complaint Cell in the Collectorate, Purnea on the basis of which inquiry was held and the said reports were submitted. Obviously, after submission of the reports, the competent authority, i.e., Collector was to take a final decision in the matter after hearing the parties likely to be affected. There is nothing on record to show that it has been done and Collector has taken a final decision in the matter. In the circumstances, the writ application is disposed of with a direction to the Collector, Purnea/competent authority to take a final decision on the said complaint of the petitioners after going through the connected records and after hearing the 3 concerned parties. The decision must be taken by the authority concerned within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. For convenience of the concerned authority, petitioners shall file fresh representations along with a copy of this order. Arvind/ ( J.N. Singh, J.)