ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 16-02-2024 Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Kameshwar Kumar (GP 17) for the State as well as Mr. Md. Ziaul Quamar for the respondent nos.8 to 12.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that he does not want to seek any relief as against the petitioner no.1, namely, Nutan Prabha as she died during the pendency of writ application, as such this application become infructuous against the petitioner no.1.

3. Now, this writ application is being heard only with regard to the petitioner no.2.

4. The present writ application is being filed for the following reliefs:-

(i) For issuance of writ to quash the order dated

10.04.2019 passed in Appeal No.126 of 2019 by the State Appellate Authority, Patna whereby and whereunder the appeal No.126/2019 filed by the petitioners in terms of the order dated 31.01.2019 passed in C.W.J.C. No.6261 of 2015 has been disallowed and also to quash the order as contained in memo no.84 dated 19.03.2013 passed by the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Arariya.

(ii) For issuance of writ for commanding and directing the respondent authorities to appoint the petitioners against the post of Panchayat Teacher after hearing the case of the petitioners on merit.

(iii) For issuance of other order, direction for which the petitioners may be found legally entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the matter.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner no.2 applied for appointment on the post of Panchayat Teacher in the year 2006. In furtherance of the selection process, 16 vacancies were shown to be vacant and roster dated 15.09.2006 was approved in which eight posts were declared for unreserved, out of eight posts, four posts were for male unreserved and four posts for unreserved female category, one for E.B.C, one for E.B.C.(f), one for S.C and two for S.C.(f), one for B.C. and one for B.C.(f) and one for R(f) category. He submits that the appointment committee in course of selection process, scrutinized the application form of the candidates including petitioner no.2 The petitioner no.2 was called for counselling and he appeared in said counselling on 17.10.2006. Petitioner no.2 has got 68.02% in intermediate examination and he was under impression that the appointment committee shall move further in accordance with the interse merit between the candidates but, unfortunately, petitioner no.2 was not selected and the private respondent no.8 to 12 got appointed ignoring the merit of the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the private respondent nos.8 to 12 have secured lesser marks than the petitioner no.2 and they also got appointed against unreserved post by virtue of reason that the appointment committee has not prepared the merit list on the basis of interse merit. The respondent nos.8 to 12 have Maulvi qualification and their respective marks in Maulvi Examination are as follows:- (i) Respondent no.8 has 58% marks, (ii) Respondent no.9 has 56.33% marks, (iii) Respondent no.10 has 63.4% marks, (iv) Respondent no.11 has 61.5% marks, (v) Respondent no.12 has

57.1% marks.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner no.2, after knowing the illegal act of the appointment committee, filed a representation/complaint on 07.11.2007 before respondent no.5, who was the competent authority at that point of time. In the year 2008, the State of Bihar made an amendment in the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teacher (Employment and Service Conditions) 2006 Rules, whereby the District Appellate Authority has been constituted for redressal of grievance of the candidates. Therefore, the petitioner moved before him and filed his complaint dated 15.01.2009, raising his grievance that the Urdu qualified teachers have been wrongly appointed on the posts that were meant for general teachers. He further submits that the District Appellate Authority, after hearing the matters, fixed different