Advocates:
['Bhim Kumar Yadav', 'AJAY BIHARI SINHA SC', '', 'MITHILESH KR SINGH', 'Shri Nath Pathak']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4755 of 2011

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

Pratibha Kumari Wife of Pravin Kumar Pankaj, resident of village and Post

Thatha, Block & P.S. Mansi, Dist. Khagaria.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Human Resources

Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The District Magistrate, Khagaria.

3. The District Superintendent of Education, Khagaria, Dist. Khagaria.

4. The District Teacher Appointment Appellate Tribunal, District

Khagaria, Dist. Khagaria through its chairman.

5. The Block Development Officer, Block Mansi, P.S. Mansi, Dist.

Khagaria.

6. The Block Education Officer, Block Mansi, P.S. Mansi, Dist. Khagaria.

7. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Thatha ( East) Block & P.S. Mansi,

District-Khagaria.

8. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Thatha (East) Block &

P.S. Mansi, Dist. Khagaria.

9. Rani Bibha Shree, Daughter of Maheshwar Prasad, the Panchayat

Teacher, Primary School Paswan Tola, Nautolia, under Gram

Panchayat Raj Thatha East, Block and P.S. Mansi, Dist. Khagaria.

.... .... Respondent/s

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

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR

MANDAL

ORAL ORDER

6

20-11-2013

Aggrieved by order dated 29.1.2011 passed by the

District Teacher‟s Appointment Appellate Authority, Khagaria

(for short „Authority‟) in Appeal Case No. 62-01/2010 the present

writ petition has been filed for setting aside the said order. The

petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the order dated 7.4.07

whereby respondent no.9 was appointed as Panchayat teacher (for

short „PT‟).

In Gram Panchayat Raj Thatha (East) within Mansi

police station in the District of Khagaria selection process for

Patna High Court CWJC No.4755 of 2011 (6) dt.20-11-2013

2

appointment of PTs was initiated in the year 2006. The petitioner

and others applied for those posts. The petitioner and respondent

No.9 belong to the same category. The appointment was to be

made as per the provisions contained in the Bihar Panchayat

Elementary Teacher (Employment & Service Conditions) Rules,

2006 ( for short „the Rules‟). A merit list/panel (Annexure-1) was

prepared in which petitioner figured at Sl. No. 15 whereas

respondent no.9 figured at Sl. No. 38 amongst the untrained

candidates. The petitioner claims to have secured 69.88% marks

in the Intermediate of Arts examination whereas respondent no.9

secured 64.22%. The petitioner appeared in the counselling on

the date and time fixed therefor whereafter the documents

furnished by her were also verified. The grievance of the

petitioner is that after final select list/ merit list (Annexure-1) she

has not been informed by respondent nos. 7 and 8 and the

respondent no.9 was selected and appointed on 7.4.07. She raised

a grievance in this regard before the authority. Ultimately she

approached the Tribunal in the year 2010 raising the aforesaid

grievance which was considered and rejected by the order dated

29.1.2011 (Annexure-7). Hence the application.

Heard Mr. Mahendra Thakur for the petitioner,

counsel for the State and Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Singh for the

Patna High Court CWJC No.4755 of 2011 (6) dt.20-11-2013

3

respondent no.9. A counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent

no.9 and rejoinder thereto have been filed. The petitioner has

filed a supplementary affidavit which has also been replied by the

respondent no.9.

Learned counsel for the petitioner while criticizing

the order passed by the Authority (Annexure-7) contended that as

per the Rule Provision the selected candidate was required to be

separately informed. Such information was to be made by an

acceptable mode of communication. The authority erred in

accepting the contention of the respondents that the merit panel

after preparation was pas