IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1651 of 2002 MD.SALAHUDDIN, S/O LATE MAJLUM HUSSAIN, R/O WARD NO.4, P.S.-MADHEPURA, TOWN AND DISTRICT- MADHEPURA. …………………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, NEW SECRETARIAT, VIKAS BHAWAN, PATNA. 2. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, VIKAS BHAWAN, PATNA. 3. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, MADHEPURA. 4. THE HEADMASTER, ADARSH MIDDLE SCHOOL, MURLIGANJ, MADHEPURA. ……………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 7 05.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. This is the 3rd round of litigation before this Court by the petitioner. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court in his writ application, namely, CWJC no. 9208 of 1995, the Director, Primary Education considered the representation of the petitioner and rejected the same by a reasoned order which is Annexure-1 with the writ application and is under challenge. The sheet-anchor of the case of the petitioner is an appointment letter issued from the office of the District Superintendent of Education, Madhepura, as contained in Annexure- 3, and the service book opened by the Headmaster 2 of the School, as contained in Annexure-6. As per the case of the petitioner a waiting list for appointment of teachers in Urdu was prepared in 1978 in which the name of the petitioner was at serial no. 5. The petitioner could not get appointment in 1978. Hence he applied for inclusion of his name in the panels in subsequent years also. In 1987 also a panel was prepared in which his name was at serial no. 18. Thereafter he was issued appointment letter appointing him as Assistant Teacher in Adarsh Middle School, Muraliganj, Madhepura. This appointment letter is dated 19.5.1988. It mentions that pursuant to a decision by the District Education Establishment Committee in its meeting dated 14.3.1988 he was being appointed. Obviously the Establishment Committee which met on 14.3.1988 must have taken into account panel of candidates eligible for appointment of Urdu Teacher prepared in 1987 in which admittedly the petitioner was at serial no. 18. In the impugned order the Director, Secondary Education has noticed that from panel of 1987 only 14 candidates were appointed who 3 all had marks between 54% to 68%. He has noticed that the petitioner’s percentage was 39.8. There is nothing on record to show that any other candidate from below from the panel of 1987 was appointed. In the circumstances, it is obvious that the petitioner was not entitled for his appointment on the basis of his ranking in 1987 panel. In the circumstances, the salary of the petitioner was stopped and he was held to have been illegally appointed by the District Superintendent of Education. The petitioner agitated his claim twice before and the matter was remitted back to the Director, Primary Education to consider his case after verifying the peon book and dispatch register. Counter affidavits have been filed with statements on oath that the records of the office of the District Superintendent of Education got burnt in year 1996 itself on account of fire caused by some persons. Even if the peon book and the dispatch register would have been available, they would have only shown that the letter of the appointment was issued from the office of District Superintendent of 4 Education. This could not give any benefit to the petitioner as it is clear that the petitioner was not entitled for appointment from 1987 panel as only 14 candidates were appointed from it and petitioner’s name was at serial no. 18. The original panel has been produced by learned counsel for the State in this Court from which this fact is clear. The petitioner has not claimed that appointment letter (Annexure-3) was issued on the basis of the resolution of the Committee which took into account any other previous panel prepared for appointment of Urdu teachers in a District. Therefore, the petitioner’s appointment by the District Superintendent of Education, Madhepura was clearly illegal. In the circumstances, this Court does not find any error in the order of the Director, Primary Education, as contained in Annexure-1, and does not find any merit in the writ application of the petitioner. The writ application is accordingly dismissed. Arvind/ (J. N. Singh, J.)