ORDER Aggrieved by the direction to the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, Jharkhand Education Project, Dumka to make an enquiry into the matter, the appellant has preferred the present Letters Patent. The appellant claims that his appointment made on the basis of the Resolution of the Gram Sabha of village-Tilwaria, Chorkhedda panchayat, District-Dumka, was duly approved by the Block Education Committee on 28.12.2002. Pursuant to his appointment though, he performed his duty as parateacher, he was not paid salary/ honorarium and therefore, he had to approach this Court in W.P.(S) No. 1494 of 2010. 2. Before the Writ Court, a counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the District Superintendent-cum-District Programme Officer stating that the villagers of the village-Tilwaria protested the selection of the appellant as Para-Teacher because he is not a resident of the said village rather, he is an inhabitant of village-Amga which is about 3 K.M. away from the school. It is further stated that the appellant was not selected and rather, one Sanjay Kumar Sharma, a backward community candidate, who is inhabitant of the village-Tilwaria was selected. In the meeting of Village Education Committee dated 06.11.2002, the appellant got 6 votes whereas, Sanjay Kumar Sharma (respondent no. 7) got 44 votes. However, the appellant in connivance with the Chairman of the Village Education Committee, Telwaria got opened account in the bank and received payment of Rs. 11,000/-. It is further stated that the appellant in connivance with some of the members of the Village Education Committee formed another Committee which passed a Resolution, selecting the appellant. The Village Education Committee, EGS, Tilwaria referred the matter to B.D.O. who, in turn, forwarded the matter to the Block Education Extension Officer, Jarmundi. He recommended the matter to District Committee for “Samiksha”. In the meantime, the appellant approached the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Santhal Pargana for payment of his salary and for dismissal of respondent no. 7 namely, Sanjay Kumar Sharma. The Regional Deputy Director of Education entrusted enquiry to the Sub-Divisional Educational Officer, Dumka who reported that the appellant was appointed. Thereafter, the District Superintendent of Education heard the matter in the presence of Gram Pradhan, Chairman of the Village Education Committee, the appellant, respondent no. 7 and respondent no. 8. 7 namely, Sanjay Kumar Sharma. The Regional Deputy Director of Education entrusted enquiry to the Sub-Divisional Educational Officer, Dumka who reported that the appellant was appointed. Thereafter, the District Superintendent of Education heard the matter in the presence of Gram Pradhan, Chairman of the Village Education Committee, the appellant, respondent no. 7 and respondent no. 8. The District Superintendent of Education, Dumka directed them to produce the register for selection which was not produced and therefore, the matter was directed to be enquired into by A.P.O. and Block Incharge, Jharkhand Education Project, Dumka. A joint enquiry team submitted its report on 06.04.2005 indicating that it asked the appellant and the respondent no. 7 to appear before the Committee, however, appellant did not appear before the Committee. It is further stated that the villagers have stated that the respondent no. 7 has been working continuously whereas, the appellant worked only for 15-16 days. 3. In the aforesaid facts, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition directing the respondent no. 3 to conduct enquiry into the matter after giving adequate opportunity to the appellant, the respondent no. 7 and the officials of the District Education Project, Dumka. A further direction was issued for inspection and verification of the relevant records. 4. Challenging the above direction given by the learned Single Judge of this Court, the appellant has approached this Court by filing the present Letters Patent Appeal. 5. Mr. Jai Prakash Jha, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the proceeding dated 28.12.2002 wherein the name of the appellant appears would conclusively establish that it was the appellant who was selected by the Village Education Committee in its Aam Sabha dated 06.11.2002 and 18.11.2002 and his appointment was duly approved by the Block Education Committee and therefore, the direction of the learned Single Judge remitting the matter to the respondent no. 3 for making enquiry afresh into the matter was not warranted and needs interference by this Court. It is further submitted that admittedly the appellant is more qualified as he possesses degree of graduation whereas, other candidates possesses degree of intermediate only. 3 for making enquiry afresh into the matter was not warranted and needs interference by this Court. It is further submitted that admittedly the appellant is more qualified as he possesses degree of graduation whereas, other candidates possesses degree of intermediate only. The appellant has produced on record a certificate issued by the competent authority which would indicate that the appellant is a resident of village-Tilwaria and in these facts it cannot be disputed that the appellant was duly selected on the post of para-teacher and thus the direction issued by the learned Single Judge for making an enquiry afresh would be a futile exercise. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Jalisur Rahman, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand has submitted that several inquires were conducted into the matter and in the first enquiry it was found that it was the appellant who was duly selected by the Village Education Committee. However, subsequently, the Regional Deputy Director has ordered the matter to be further enquired into and another report was submitted in which it has been indicated that the majority of the villagers have stated that the respondent no. 7 was selected on the post of para-teacher. 7. It is further submitted that the Sub-Divisional Education Officer, Dumka in his report dated 28.06.2007 stated that the appellant was selected by the Village Education Committee. Subsequently, another enquiry was instituted in which it has been found that in the meeting of the Village Education Committee the appellant received 6 votes whereas, the respondent no. 7 obtained 44 votes and thus, there is factual dispute in the matter. On these grounds, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand has supported the direction given by the learned Single Judge. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent nos. 7 and 8 have also supported the direction issued by the learned Single Judge directing the respondent no. 3 – Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman to conduct an enquiry into the matter. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 7 has further submitted that it has come on record that respondent no. 7 has been working since long and he is resident of Village-Tilwaria. 9. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and carefully considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the counsel appearing for the parties. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 7 has further submitted that it has come on record that respondent no. 7 has been working since long and he is resident of Village-Tilwaria. 9. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and carefully considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the counsel appearing for the parties. 10. From the materials brought on record, it appears that there are contradictory enquiry reports with respect to the claims made by the appellant and the respondent no. 7. The appellant has claimed that in the enquiry report submitted by the Sub-Divisional Educational Officer, Dumka, it has been found that the appellant was selected by the Village Education Committee. Whereas, the respondent no. 7 has claimed that he was duly appointed as he received the maximum votes in the meeting dated 06.11.2002 by the Village Education Committee and he has been working there. It further appears that due to some differences in the Village Education Committee two groups have been formed and two separate bank accounts have been opened. Chairman of Village Education Committee and the appellant opened one bank account from which the appellant withdrew a sum of Rs. 11,000/- on account of his salary. Whereas, another bank account has been opened through which the salary of the other para-teachers are being withdrawn. In the counter-affidavit, it has been categorically averred that the appellant is not a resident of village-Tilwaria whereas, the appellant has produced a document indicating that he is an inhabitant of Village-Tiwaria. In these facts, the learned Single Judge has rightly observed that the adjudication in the matter would depend upon certain facts which appears to have not been properly enquired into by the competent authority and therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman Jharkhand Education Project, Dumka for causing an enquiry into the matter after giving due opportunity to the appellant, private respondents as well as the officials of the District Education Project. 11. In view of the above, we find no infirmity in the judgment of the learned Single Judge and accordingly, this Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. 12. After we passed the order in this Letters Patent Appeal, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant requested that respondent no.3Deputy Director-cum-Chairman, Jharkhand Education Project, Dumka may be directed to conclude the enquiry at an early date. 13. 12. After we passed the order in this Letters Patent Appeal, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant requested that respondent no.3Deputy Director-cum-Chairman, Jharkhand Education Project, Dumka may be directed to conclude the enquiry at an early date. 13. In view of the submissions made by learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant, 3rd respondent is directed to conclude the enquiry at an early date. Appeal dismissed.