IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.740 of 2007 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION PATNA DIVISION, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER AT SASARAM DISTRICT- ROHATAS 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, BHABHUA (KAIMUR) … RESPONDENT… APPELLANT Versus 1. RAMAYAN RAM, S/O RAMCHANDRA RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- DEVDIHI, P.O.-SUDHIKHAR, DISTRICT-ROHTAS 2. AMRENDRA KUMAR SINGH S/O SRI SHEONATH SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-CHITAON, P.O-INDORE, DISTRICT-ROHTAS 3. BHANU PRATAP SINGH, S/O SRI SHIV GOVIND SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE+P.O. BHABHUA, DISTRICT-ROHTAS 4. MD. SAFFIULLAH KHAN S/O LATE ISRAIL KHAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE + P.O. CHOTTA SHEKHPURA, DISTRICT-ROHTAS … PETITIONER---- RESPONDENTS ----------- 15 17.05.2011 The main grievance urged before us that the process of selection have been objected by the concerned authorities without any advertisement or without following the procedure as laid down under law, hence after issuing show cause to the petitioners termination orders were issued. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition on the ground that on earlier occasion similar matters have been subjected to in C.W.J.C. No.1659 of 2001 and the L.P.A. No.139 of 2003 filed against the order passed in the aforesaid writ petition stands dismissed. The learned counsel appearing on behalf 2 of the State has contended that as one of the member was absent in the selection Committee, hence the selection made by the said Committee was held to be illegal for the reason that one of the member in the selection Committee was absent. Accordingly, the order of the learned Single Judge has to be set aside even on that ground above. But, however, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that even assuming that one of the member of the Committee was absent but the Apex Court in a similar situation in the case of Ishwar Chandra vs. Satyanarain Sinha and others reported in AIR 1972 SC 1812 has upheld the action of the committee in which in absence of a member, another person was accommodated on the ground that the said member ought to have been noticed in advance. The relevant paragraph 5 of the said judgment is extracted hereinbelow:- “It is also not denied that the meeting held by two of the three members on the 4th April 1970 was legal because sufficient notice was given to all the three members. If for one reason or the other one of them could not attend, that does not make the meeting of others illegal. In such circumstances, where there is no rule or regulation or any other provision for fixing the quorum, the presence of the majority of the members would constitute it a valid meeting and matters considered thereat cannot be 3 held to be invalid.” Learned counsel has also brought to the notice of this Court that in similar matter an S.L.P. being S.L.P. No. 24049 of 2003 dated 22.09.2010 in which it has been observed that “the appellant could not be able to place any material either documentary or oral before us to show that the procedure as contemplated under the norms has not been complied by the competent authority”. In the absence of such material and also following the law laid down by the Apex court rendered in the case of Ishwar Chandra (supra), we are of the opinion that the order of the learned Single Judge needs no interference. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Ashwini (T.Meena Kumari,J.) (Akhilesh Chandra, J.)