Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 956 (PAT)

Geeta Kumari v. State Of Bihar

2014-09-05

CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH

body2014
ORDER : 1. This is an application seeking quashing of an order issued vide Memo No. 1071 dated 03.04.2010 passed in Case No. 386/2009 whereby the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority, Jehanabad has rejected the petitioner’s claim for her appointment as Panchayat Teacher of Gram Panchayat Raj Sikaria under the district of Jehanabad. She claimed before the Tribunal that she had better merit points than Respondent No. 8 and alleged that ignoring the petitioner’s superior merits, adopting illegal procedure, the Teachers Appointment Committee of the Panchayat appointed Respondent No. 8 as Panchayat Teacher. 2. Mr. Arvind Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that there is no dispute over the fact that petitioner holds Intermediate qualification with 66.12% of marks whereas Respondent No. 8 is a simple Matriculate. He has submitted that no notice was issued to the petitioner inviting her to appear for counselling or giving consent for appointment as Panchayat Teacher. According to him, the Respondents surreptitiously appointed Respondent No. 8 and when the petitioner learnt about appointment of Respondent No. 8, she approached the Appellate Authority. 3. From the impugned order, it appears that petitioner’s appeal has been rejected by the Appellate Authority on various grounds including the ground that the petitioner did not fill up the consent letter for the purpose of her appointment. It has secondly been pointed out by the Learned Member, Appellate Authority that the petitioner raised grievance against her non-selection and selection of Respondent No. 8 belatedly for the first time after nine months of conclusion of selection process. He has also considered the reports of the Executive Magistrate, Jehanabad and Additional Collector, Jehanabad wherein they found appointment of Respondent No. 8 to be valid. 4. From the pleadings and submission made on behalf of the petitioner, I find that the petitioner has not been able to explain the delay in approaching the authorities/tribunal against her non-selection as Panchayat Teacher. 5. In view of the above, I do not find merit in this application. This application is accordingly dismissed.