IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17487 of 2008 RAMBHA KUMARI, D/O Sri Satya Narayan Rai, Resident of Village- Rani, P.O.- Dumariya, P.S.- Sikarhatta, District- Bhojpur. ……….Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, through its Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The District Magistrate, Bhojpur in the District of Bhojpur. 3. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Bhojpur in the District of Bhojpur. 4. The District Education Officer, Bhojpur in the District of Bhojpur. 5. The Incharge Headmaster/Headmaster of Nihal Pandey High School, Sikraul, Bhojpur in the District of Bhojpur. …….Respondents. For the Petitioner:- Mr. Basant Kr. Choudhary, Sr. Adv. With Mr. Ranjan Kr. Singh, Adv. For the respondent:- G.P. No. 4. ----------- 3 13.01.2011 This writ application was initially filed for quashing the letter no. 1705, dated 08.11.2008 issued under the signature of the District Education Officer, Bhojpur as well as for quashing of the consequential order vide letter no. 45, dated 10.11.2008 issued under the signature of Incharge Headmaster, Nihal Pandey High School, Sikraul as contained in Annexure 1 by which the petitioner was restrained from signing the attendance register and it has also 2 been prayed to include the name of the petitioner in the merit list of the 2nd phase of appointment of teacher. The present Interlocutory Application No. 4 of 2011 has been filed for stay on issuance of engagement letter to the teachers in Nagar Nigam and Zila Parishad. Annexure 1 and 3 were issued to the petitioner by the authorities claiming that the petitioner had produced forged B.Ed. certificate. It is controverted by the Ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner had annexed with the application, the mark sheet, which depicted that the petitioner had not passed the B.Ed. examination. Now the grievance of the petitioner is with regard to non-empanelment of the petitioner in the second phase of appointment due to the proceeding going on with respect to the initial appointment and it is submitted that the appeal of the petitioner is pending before Appellate 3 Authority. In this regard, the order dated 12.03.2010 passed by the Appellate Authority reflects that the Appellate Authority has not proceeded in the matter and has declined to pass any final order for disposing the case of the petitioner due to the matter being pending before the Hon’ble High Court. Let the Appellate Authority decide the whole issue afresh and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Any appointment by the authority will be subject to the result of the final out come of the dispute. It is expected from the Appellate Authority that the issue is decided expeditiously since the process of appointment is going on. With the aforesaid observations, this writ application is disposed off. Bhardwaj/- ( Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)