IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11606 of 2017 ======================================================

Md. Taufique Ahmed Ansari son of Md. Taslim Ansari resident of Village - Khardih, Post - Khardih, Police Station - Sikandra, Block - Sikandra, District - Jamui.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The District Magistrate, Jamui.

4. The District Superintendent of Education, Jamui.

5. The Member, District Teacher Appellate Authority, Jamui.

6. The Block Development Officer, Sikandra, Jamui.

7. The Block Extension Education Officer, Sikandra, Jamui.

8. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Khardih, Post - Khardih, Police Station Block - Sikandra, District

9. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Khardih, Post - Khardih, Police Station Block - Sikand

10. Jawed Eqbal Ansari son of Riyasat Hussain resident of Village - Khardih, Post - Khardih, Police Station - Sikandra, Block - Sikandra, District - Jamui.

... ... Respondent/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, Adv.

For the State : Mr. S.C. Mishra- SC-16 For respondent no. 9 : Mr. Ram Vinay Prasad Singh (Sanjay), Adv.

For respondent no. 10 : Mr. Arun Kumar Adv.

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 09-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent nos. 9 and 10 and learned counsel for the State.

2. The petitioner in the present case has challenged the order passed in Appeal Case No. 429 of 2010 contained in Memo No. 287, dated 22.06.2011 (Annexure-27 to the Interlocutory Application Application), passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Jamui and the consequent order dated 12.07.2017, passed by the State Appellate Authority, Bihar in Case No. 22 of 2017.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner was possessing better marks than the respondent no. 10 and that despite having better marks, the petitioner was prevented from participating in the counselling, which was held on 28.02.2009, as a result of which, respondent no. 10 with lesser marks than the petitioner was appointed on 14.08.2010. After the respondent no. 10, who as per the petitioner was having lesser marks than the petitioner was appointed, the petitioner challenged the said appointment by filing an appeal before the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Jamui on 30.09.2010. 4. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order passed by the District Teachers Appellate Authority on 22.06.2011 is bad in law for the reason that the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Jamui has simply dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground of delay without looking into the merits of the case. Aggrieved by this order, when the petitioner challenged the same before the State Appellate Authority, the State Appellate Authority also simply concurred with the finding given by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Jamui and did not bother to examine the merits of the matter.

5. Being aggrieved by both these orders, the petitioner has filed the present writ application.

6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 10 submits that the order passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Jamui as well as the State Appellate Authority are both well reasoned and speaking order and, therefore, there is no need to interfere with the orders, which have been impugned in the present writ application.

7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 9 supports the case of respondent no. 10 and submits that no irregularity or illegality was committed in the entire selection- cum-appointment process and, therefore, the grievance of the petitioner is completely mis-conceived.

8. After hearing the submissions made by t