IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14666 of 2010 1. RAMESH KUMAR BIMAL S/O SRI ONKAR NATH CHOUBEY R/O VILL.- PARMANPUR, P.S.- NAWANAGAR, DISTT.- BUXAR 2. SMT. MANTU KUMARI W/O SHRI RAM RAJ RAM R/O VILL.- PARHARIA, P.S.- NAWANAGAR, DISTT.- BUXAR 3. SMT. BINDU KUMARI W/O RAMESH KUMAR BIMAL R/O VILL.- PARMANPUR, P.S. NAWANAGAR, DISTT.- BUXAR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE COLLECTOR, BUXAR 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, BUXAR 4. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, NAWANAGAR, P.S.- NAWANAGAR, DISTT.- BUXAR 5. THE GRAM PANCHAYAT, PARMANPUR P.O. PARMANPUR, P.S.- NAWANAGAR, DISTT.- BUXAR THROUGH ITS MUKHYA SHRI ANIL KUMAR CHOUBEY, S/O SHRI ONKAR NATH CHOUBEY, R/O P.O.- PARMANPUR, P.S. NAWANAGAR, DISTT.- BUXAR 6. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT, PARMANPUR P.O.- PARMANPUR, P.S. NAWANAGAR, DISTT.- BUXAR ----------- 2 25.4.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The findings given by the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority, Buxar with regard to the 2 manner in which the Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat appointed these petitioners on the post are too glaring which also establishes the nepotism as well as arbitrariness in the appointment of these petitioners to the post of a Panchayat Shiksha Mitra. At the relevant time at least two of the petitioners are closely related to the Mukhiya one is the brother and the other is wife of the brother. Findings is that by manipulating the records appointments came to be made within the family of the Mukhiya and there is no clear or categorical evidence contrary to what has been recorded therein. Contention of the counsel representing the petitioners is that petitioner no.3 was not even a party to the dispute whereas petitioner nos.1 and 2 were compelled to approach the Appellate Authority because no salary was being paid to them after their appointment and they approached the High Court in a writ application which 3 directed them to represent their case before the Appellate Authority. It is during the course of such a hearing that the wrong committed in such appointment emerged and obviously the appellate authority did not come to the rescue of the two petitioners in question. It is also the case of the petitioners that there were no claimants or any dispute raised by any person claiming that they had a better right than these petitioners who came to be appointed. The case was initiated at the instance of certain persons were at logger heads with the Mukhiya of the Panchayat and at much belated stage the dispute in question was raked up which has culminated into passing of the said order. One thing is evident that the Appellate Authority has rightly held that no direction for appointment of Parvati Kumari on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra can be ordered now in view of the fact that the post in question 4 does not exist from 01.7.2006. So far as continuance of claim of these petitioners are concerned in the opinion of the Court interfering with the decision would be certifying the wrong conduct of the Mukhiya of which the petitioners are direct beneficiaries and are closely related to each other a fact not denied. When no materials contrary to the findings have emerged, the findings being what they are, the court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order as it would have the effect of putting a seal of approval on an illegal conduct. This writ application is dismissed. PN ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)