IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14476 of 2009 1. POONAM KUMARI D/O- SRI SAKALDEEP RAI VILL& P.O. PANAPUR LONGA, BLOCK- HAZIPUR, P.S- DADAR HAZIPUR, DISTT- VAISHALI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DIRECTOR PRIMARY EDUCATION GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE VAISHALI, HAZIPUR 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR 5. THE BLOCK EDUCATON EXTENSION OFFICER HAZIPUR 6. THE MUKHIYA GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ PANAPUR LANGA ANCHAL HAZIPUR 7. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, RAJ PANAPUR LANGA ANCHAL HAZIPUR ----------- 02/ 03.02.2010 Petitioner’s grievance is that ignoring her higher marks in Intermediate, she was not appointed in the most backward category and one Umesh Prasad Gupta was appointed on the basis of forged certificate. Subsequently, on enquiry it was found that Umesh Prasad Gupta was appointed on the basis of forged certificate, as such he was removed and an FIR was lodged against him, but the petitioner, in whose favour a direction had been issued by the Block Development Officer to the Block Education Extension Officer to appoint eligible candidate, after cancelling the appointment of Umesh Prasad Gupta was not implemented. No appointment letter has been issued in favour of the petitioner. Considering the facts of the case, it is apparent that petitioner was denied appointment and her grievance could - 2 - have redressed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal under Rule 18 of 2008 Rules, instead of exhausting statutory remedy the petitioner has come before this Court. Accordingly, this application is being disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner for filing an appeal before the concerned District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal. In case such an appeal is preferred by the petitioner within one month from today, it should be considered and decided on merit within the statutory period. DKS/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)