JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. S.B.K. Manglam, the learned Advocate for the petitioners in C.WJ.C. No. 6167 of 2019 (Md. Arshad Hussain Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) and in C.WJ.C. No. 5365 of 2019 (Md. Fazlur Rahman Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.); Mr. Shambhu Sharan Kumar, the learned Advocate in C.WJ.C. No. 5562 of 2019 (Md. Saddam Hussain & Anr. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.); and Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, the learned Advocate in C.WJ.C. No. 7147 of 2019 (Abuzar Siddiquee & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.). Mr. Shambhu Sharan Kumar, the learned Advocate has appeared for the private respondent Nos. 10 & 11 and 12 & 13 in C.WJ.C. No. 6167 of 2019 and C.WJ.C. No. 5365 of 2019 as also in C.WJ.C. No. 7147 of 2019 respectively. The State is represented by Mr. Jai Prabhat Kishore, learned A.C. to S.C. 13, Mr. Madhaw Prasad Yadav, learned G.P. 23, Mr. Madanjeet Kumar, learned G.P. 20 and Mr. S.C. Mishra, learned S.C. 16 in all the writ petitions respectively.

2. The order passed by the State Appellate Authority dated 15.02.2019 is in question in all the writ petitions.

3. On behalf of the writ-petitioners in C.WJ.C. No. 6167 of 2019 and C.WJ.C. No. 5365 of 2019, Mr. S.B.K. Manglam, the learned Advocate has submitted that the District Teachers Appellate Authority in its order dated 27.02.2018 as also the State Appellate Authority in its order dated 15.02.2019 have erred in facts and law.

4. The afore-noted petitioners were selected as Panchayat Elementary School Teachers in the discipline of Urdu in a camp interview which was held on 18.11.2016.Their appointments were challenged by the private respondent Nos. 10 and 11 and private respondent Nos. 12 and 13 in respective writ petitions, referred to above, before the concerned authority specifically alleging that their names were arbitrarily not called out during the process of selection. When no action was taken on such complaints, they preferred an application before the District Teachers Appellate Authority, which, by its order impugned in the present two writ petitions (C.WJ.C. No. 6167 of 2019 and C.WJ.C. No. 5365 of 2019) held that the interview/selection process was not conducted fairly.

5. The challenge to the aforesaid order by the petitioners before the State Appellate Authority could not succeed.

6. It has been urged on behalf of the petitioners (C.WJ.C. No. 6167 of 2019 and C.WJ.C. No. 5365 of 2019) by Mr. Manglam that in camp interview, the procedure adopted was that the name of the candidates was called out thrice. When such candidate did not show-up, the authorities were required to proceed ahead and call out another name. He submits that the whole purpose of conducting camp interview was to shorten the process of selection/appointment and also to look for desirous candidates having eligibility to be appointed as teachers in specific subjects. It matters not, Mr. Manglam adds, that any person has higher marks. What is necessary for being selected is the eligibility of the candidate and his appearance before the authorities at the time of call of his name.

7. Taking the argument further, Mr. Manglam states that there was nothing on record before the District Teachers Appellate Authority or the State Appellate Authority to have come to a definite finding that the private respondent Nos. 10 and 11 and the private respondent Nos. 12 and 13 respectively were present at the time when the interview was being conducted. He further submits that the District Teachers Appellate Authority drew a presumption against the petitioners only on the ground that there were eight hundred twenty five (825) applicants registered for the purposes of selection, but only ten had shown-up on that day, which, in the opinion of the District Teachers Appellate Authority, made the entire selection process highly suspicious. Apart from this, what weighed with the District Teachers Appellate Authority was not borne out by records. The authority in question took note of the simultaneous complaints of the respondents