Anju Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.1005 of 2016 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15974 of 2010 ====================================================== Anju Kumari Daughter of Sri Upendra Prasad Resident of village + P.O. Sona Gopalpur, P.S. - Gaurichak, District Patna. .... .... Appellant/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. The District Teacher Employment Appellate Tribunal Patna, through its member.

3. The District Magistrate, Patna.

4. The District Superintendent of Education, Patna.

5. The Block Education Extension Officer, Sampatchak, Patna.

6. The Mukhiya of Sonagopalpur Panchayat at resident of Village - Sonagopalpur, P.S. - Gaurichak, District - Patna.

7. Panchayat Secretary, Sonagopalpur Panchayat, resident of village - Sonagopalpur, p.s. - Gaurichak, District - Patna.

8. Sunita Kumari Daughter of Sri Ashok Kumar Singh resident of village - Sampatchak Bazar P.O., Sonagopalpur, P.S. - Gaurichak, District - Patna.

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Jeetendra Narayan For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ajay- Ga12 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 23-06-2017 Having heard learned counsels for the parties, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

I.A. No. 3653/2016 stands disposed of.

The concurrent findings recorded by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal and approved by the learned writ Court to say that the residential certificate produced

Patna High Court LPA No.1005 of 2016 (4) dt.23-06-2017 2/2 by the petitioner to seek appointment as Panchyat Teacher is forged one, is under challenge in this appeal. The concurrent findings are based on reports and evaluation of the factual aspects of the matter and we see no error in such concurrent findings of fact recorded both by the appellate Tribunal and the writ Court. We find the claim to be devoid of merit.

The appeal stands dismissed.

(Rajendra Menon, CJ) (Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) S.Pandey/- U