IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8340 of 2011 RENU KUMARI, wife of Vinay Nath Mishra, resident of Kharahia Basti, Ward No.10, P.S. Araria, District- Araria. ……Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Secretary, Primary Education, Human Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Araria. 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Araria. 5. The Block Development Officer, Araria. 6. The District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Araria, through Member. 7. Sadanand Ram, at present posted as the Panchayat Secretary, Rajgera Panchayat, Araria. 8. Bibi Sagira, the then Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat, Rajgera, Block- Araria. 9. Mamta Kumari, wife of Sanjeev Kumar Singh, resident of village- Sandalpur, P.S.- Araria, District- Araria. ……Respondents. ----------- 02- 11.5.2011 Heard Mr. Amish Kumar for the petitioner, learned Assistant Counsel to Government Pleader No.6 for respondent nos.1 to 6, and Mr. Anand Kumar for respondent no.9. This writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to set aside the order dated 28.3.2011 (Annexure-14), passed in Case No.90 of 2009, by the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Araria, whereby appointment of the present petitioner as a Panchayat Teacher has been set aside, and respondent no.9 has been directed to be appointed in her place. 2 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of this writ petition may be indicated. An advertisement was issued by Rajgera Gram Panchayat for appointment of Panchayat Teacher. The petitioner and respondent no.9 were amongst others applicants for the same. The petitioner was appointed by letter dated 18.10.2007 (Annexure-7). Respondent no.9 made a complaint about the petitioner’s appointment which was examined by a Committee of the functionaries of the Panchayat, and perhaps the complaint of respondent no.9 was rejected. Respondent no.9 challenged the petitioner’s appointment by preferring Case No.90 of 2009 before the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Araria which was allowed by order dated 31.5.2010 (Annexure-10), whereby the petitioner’s appointment was set aside on the ground that she had been included in the merit-list on account of interpolations in the original records. The petitioner challenged the same by preferring C.W.J.C. No.9424 of 2010 which was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 6.9.2010, on the ground that the petitioner has not been afforded reasonable opportunity by the learned Appellate Authority, set aside the order dated 31.5.2010 (Annexure-10), and 3 remitted the matter back to the learned Appellate Authority for re-consideration. On re-consideration, the Appellate Authority passed the impugned order dated 28.3.2011, whereby the petitioner’s appointment has been set aside. It has further directed for appointment of respondent no.9 in her place and impugned herein. 4. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears to us that the petitioner got promoted in the merit- list because of interpolation in service records. In that view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be faulted. We do not find any merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. (S.K. Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/