Rajeshwar Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5912 of 2019 ====================================================== Rajeshwar Kumar Son of Kapildeo Ram R/o Village-Lagunaha, P.O.- Lagunaha, P.S.-Sahodara (Subhadra), District-West Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

The Director Primary Education, Bihar, Patna 3.

The District Magistrate West Champaran, Bettiah 4.

The District Education Officer West Champaran, Bettiah 5.

The District Programme Officer (Establishment) West Champaran, Bettiah 6.

The Block Development Officer Gaunaha, District-West Champaran 7.

The Block Education Officer Gaunaha, District-West Champaran 8.

The Presiding Officer District Teacher's Employment Appellate Authority, West Champaran at Bettiah 9.

The Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Raj Dhamaura, Block Gaunaha, DistrictWest Champaran 10.

The Panchayat Secretary Gram Panchayat Raj, Dhamaura, Block Gaunaha, District East Champaran 11.

Pramod Paswan Son of Shri Shankar Paswan R/o Village-Bishnupurwa, P.O. Gaunaha, P.S.-Sahodara (Subhadra), District-West Champaran ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Ms. Shilpa Singh, G.A. 12 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER 27-08-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. The issue raised in the present appeal is appointment on the post of Panchayat Teacher.

The matter was taken up to the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority and the District Teachers

Patna High Court CWJC No.5912 of 2019(4) dt.27-08-2019 2/2 Employment Appellate Authority, on consideration of the entire fact, has passed order in favour of the respondent no. 11. The appeal preferred by this petitioner before the State Appellate Authority was dismissed on scrutiny of the available facts. It is not in dispute that the marks obtained by the respondent no. 11 is more than that of the petitioner.

Considering the fact that the petitioner has lost the appeal before the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority as well as the State Appellate Authority and the marks obtained by the respondent no. 11 is more than that of the petitioner, under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Court is not inclined to entertain the writ application in exercise of judicial review.

The present writ application stands dismissed accordingly.

(Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) uma/- U