Challenge has been made in the present writ application to the order as contained in Memo No. 1289 dated 09.08.2011 by dint of which Letter No. 960 dated 25.05.2009 by which the approval of appointment given to the Respondent No. 4 on the post of 2nd Para Teacher in Upgraded Primary School, Pandeydih in the District of Giridih was cancelled, has been set aside.

2. Before adverting to the contentions raised on behalf of the respective parties to the writ application it would be necessary to refer to the facts emanating in the present case.

3. For the purpose of selection of a Para Teacher in Upgraded Primary School, Pandeydih a meeting of the Village Education Committee was convened on 24.01.2007 and five applicants were in contest for the said post. The candidature of Respondent No. 4 to the post of Para Teacher in Upgraded Primary School was approved and since a dispute was raised that the selection of Respondent No. 4 was not as per the norms and guidelines an enquiry was conducted by the Regional Education Officer, Giridih. The enquiry report which was submitted revealed the fact that although the Village Education Committee, Upgraded Primary School, Pandeydih did not select the Respondent No. 4 as a 2nd Para Teacher but the same was got approved by the Block Education Committee, Gandey. The enquiry report further revealed that eligible local candidates were ignored which was against the spirit of Sarbh Shiksha Abhiyan. Considering the recommendation made by the Regional Education Officer the approval of Respondent No. 4 as Para Teacher in Upgraded Primary School, Pandeydih was cancelled and the Village Education Committee of the said School was dissolved and an order for reconstitution of the same was passed. Further an order was passed by the Respondent No. 2 which is contained in Memo No. 1289 dated 09.08.2011 by which on the basis of recommendation made by the members of the Village Education Committee and the local Member of Parliament the Letter No. 960 dated 25.05.2009 cancelling the approval of appointment of Respondent No. 4 as a Para Teacher was cancelled and it was directed thereunder to make payment of the dues to the Respondent No. 4.

4. Aggrieved by the issuance of the order as contained in Memo No. 1289 dated 09.02.2011 the petitioner has preferred the present writ application.

5. Heard Mr. Arbind Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, learned J.C. to A.A.G. for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 4.

6. Mr. Arbind Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order as contained in Memo No. 1289 dated 09.08.2011 is a non-speaking and cryptic order bereft of any reasons. It has been submitted that on objection being raised with respect to the approval of appointment of Respondent No. 4 which was not as per the norms and procedures required for such appointment an enquiry was conducted and the enquiry report supported the fact that the appointment of the Respondent No. 4 was contrary to the basic objects of the Sarbh Shiksha Abhiyan and the Respondent No. 2 had rightly cancelled the approval of appointment of the Respondent No. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to the supplementary affidavit filed by him has further submitted that the Respondent No. 4 was never in contention for the post of Para Teacher but by adopting illegitimate means his name has been inserted which would be apparent from the minutes of the meeting held for selection of Para Teacher.

7. Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, learned J.C. to A.A.G., on the other hand, has submitted that the petitioner does not have any locus standi to challenge the impugned order dated 09.08.2011 as the petitioner was never in the fray of being selected as a Para Teacher in Upgraded Primary School, Pandeydih. It has also been submitted that one Susma Kumari was initially selected as a Para Teacher and her name was recommended