Md. Azaz Ansari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11171 of 2015 ====================================================== Md. Azaz Ansari Son of Kamruddin Ansari, resident of village - Nawadih, P.S. - Sikarhatta, District - Bhojpur. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna. 3.

The District Magistrate, Bhojpur.

4.

The District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Bhojpur. 5.

The D.D.C. Bhojpur, Ara.

6.

The District Education Officer, Bhojpur, Ara. 7.

The District Education Officer, Bhojpur, Ara. 8.

The Block Development Officer, Tarari, Bhojpur. 9.

The Block Education Officer, Tarari, Bhojpur. null null 10.

The Mukhia Gram Panchayat, Chakia, Tarari, Bhojpur. 11.

The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Chakia Block, Tarari, Bhojpur. null null 12.

Md. Alimuddin, Son of Md. Vakil, resident of Sikarhatta Khurd, P.S. - Simarhat, District - Bhojpur.

... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Dhirendra Singh For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Ashok Kumar Keshri ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 08-03-2022 No one appears for the petitioner.

Since it is a matter pending since 2015 and earlier this Court had dismissed the case for default. Thereafter, it has been restored. No purpose would be served in again dismissing. Hence, I am not examining the matter on merits. The petitioner by way of this writ petition prays to quash the letter dated 9.2.2015 passed in Appeal and the order dated 8.6.2015 passed by the Panchayat Secretary. The facts

Patna High Court CWJC No.11171 of 2015 dt.08-03-2022 2/2 stated in the petition is that the petitioner was selected and appointed as Panchayat Teacher in Urdu Primary School, Chakia, Bhojpur on 13.8.2010. The respondent no. 12 did not make any complaint before the concerned authority relating to question of process of employment and selection of the petitioner. However, later on appeal was preferred by him and thereafter the petitioner was heard and order was passed to appoint respondent no.4 in his place. The petitioner did not challenge the order passed by the District Appellate Authority and despite several efforts of the petitioner there is not interim order was passed.

Considering the fact the the petitioner did not possess the required qualification and the relevant time is over, the Appellate Authority has rightly dismissed the appeal, hence, no case for interference is made out and the same is accordingly dismissed.

(Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J) Ravi/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 12.03.2022 Transmission Date NA