Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 742 (PAT)

Bansidhar Tiwari v. State Of Bihar

2012-05-07

JAYANANDAN SINGH

body2012
ORAL ORDER It appears that being aggrieved by not being appointed as Panchayat Teacher, petitioner had moved the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority after hearing the parties passed order on 2.2.2011 as contained in Annexure-4 by directing the Panchayat Secretary to cancel the appointment of Respondent no.10 and appoint the petitioner. This order appears to have been challenged by Respondent no.10 before this Court on the ground that the order was passed behind his back. The writ petition was disposed of vide Annexure-9 directing the Appellate Authority to consider the matter afresh. Accordingly, parties were noticed and asked to appear before the Appellate Authority on 28.11.2011 and it passed orders, which is at Annexure-10 to this writ application. From the order of the Appellate Authority it appears that it has found that in the counseling register and in the select list the name of the petitioner was absent. Hence, the Appellate Authority observed that petitioner did not participate in the counseling inspite of being called for the same and due to which respondent no.10 was appointed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier Panchayat Authorities had produced on record a counseling register, a merit list and proceeding book before the Appellate Authority in which the name of the petitioner was at serial No. 3. 3. However, this fact does not find support from any of the orders of the Appellate Authority nor from the order dated 2.2.2011 also. From the said order it appears that Appellate Authority had come to the conclusion that the Panchayat Authorities did not produce any material on record to show that inspite of being given due notices to appear and collect his appointment letter, petitioner did not appear. On this findings the said order dated 2.2.2011 was passed by the Authorities. The impugned order shows that the counseling register and merit list have been looked into by the Appellate Authority itself. Learned counsel submits that just to give benefits to untrained teachers, the Panchayat Authoritities have now concealed the register of trained teachers. Even if possibility of this concealment of register cannot be ruled out, but it is not possible for this Court under the writ jurisdiction to examine that aspect of the matter. 4. In the circumstances, this Court finds no error in the order of the Appellate Authority. This petition is accordingly dismissed.