Patna High CourtL.P.A/1533/2013dismissed

The State Of Bihar And ORS v. Shivendra Kumar Satyarthi And ANR

2017-08-18The Chief Justice,Mr. Justice Dr. Anil Kumar Upadhyay2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.1533 of 2013 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5447 of 2011 ======================================================

1. The State Of Bihar

2. The District Magistrate-Cum-Collector, Sitamarhi

3. The District Superintendent Of Education, Sitamarhi

4. The Block Development Officer, Nanpur, Sitamarhi

5. The Block Education Extension Officer, Nanpur, Sitamarhi

6. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Janipur, BlockNanpur, District- Sitamarhi

7. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Janipur, Block- Nanpur, DistrictSitamarhi

8. The Appellate Authority, District Teachers Appointment Appellate Tribunal, Sitamarhi .... .... Appellant/s

Versus

1. Shivendra Kumar Satyarthi S/O Late Muneshwar Mishra @ Muneshwar Sharma R/O Village- Janipur, P.S.- Nanpur, DistrictSitamarhi

2. Ram Chandra Mandal S/O Sri Ram Shankar Mandal R/O VillageJanipur, P.S.- Nanpur, District- Sitamarhi .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Niraj Kumar Sinha, AC to PAAG-2 For the Respondent/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 18-08-2017 This is State's appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent and their being a delay of one year and 127 days, I.A. No. 8454 of 2013 is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

Seeking exception to an order dated 18.01.2012 passed by the learned writ Court in C.W.J.C. No. 5747 of 2011,

Patna High Court LPA No.1533 of 2013 (3) dt.18-08-2017 2/2 the appeal in question has been filed in the matter of appointment of Panchayat Teachers. The learned writ Court found that the qualification prescribed under the Rules was that the candidate should acquire the Intermediate degree and the services of the respondents terminated, even though they had acquired the Intermediate degree. The learned Writ Court has accordingly allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order. We see no error in the order of the learned writ court warranting reconsideration of the matter. The appeal stands disposed of.

(Rajendra Menon, CJ) (Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) Uday/- U