IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1691 of 2010 Urmila Devi W/O Sri Laxmi Rai R/O Vill.- Kasbe Ahar, P.O.- Tajpur, P.S.- Tajpur, Distt.- Samastipur. ...........Appellant Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary Human Development and Resources Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director of Primary Education Bihar, Patna. 3. The Regional Deputy Director, Darbhanga, Division at Darbhanga. 4. The District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Distt.- Samastipur . 5. The District Magistrate, Samastipur 6. The District Superintendent Of Education, Distt.- Samastipur. 7. The District Education Officer, Distt.- Samastipur. 8. The Block Development Officer, Block- Tajpur, Distt.- Samastipur. 9. The Block Education Extention Officer, Block Tajpur, Distt.- Samastipur 10. The Mukhia, Gram Panchayat Raj, Gauspur Sarsauna, Block- Tajpur, Distt.- Samastipur. 11. The Panchayat Secretary Gram, Panchayat Raj Gauspur, Sarsauna Block - Tajpur, Distt.- Samastipur. ...........Respondents ----------- 02 25.07.2011 Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner fairly submitted that he has not been appointed by the Mukhiya, who is the appointing authority, but his appointment was made on the recommendation of the Committee by the Secretary of the Panchayat. This assertion has been controverted by Smt. Namrata Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the State that the appellant/petitioner was never recommended by the Selection Committee. Be that as it may, but undisputedly the appellant/petitioner has not been appointed by 2 the appointing authority. Therefore, the appointment of the appellant/petitioner was void ab initio, thus, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge. Appeal is dismissed. Safik (Prakash Chandra Verma, J.) (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.)