Chandra Prakash v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5211 of 2015 ===========================================================

1. Chandra Prakash Son of Sheojee Prasad Singh, resident of Village-Baruna, P.O.- Seatha, P.S.-Narayanpur, District- Bhojpur.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Primary Adult Education, New Secretariat, Patna.

2. The Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Bhojpur at Ara.

3. The District Superintendent of Education, Bhojpur at Ara.

4. The Block Development Officer, Shahpur Block, Bhojpur

5. The Block Education Officer, Shahpur Block, Bhojpur.

6. The Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Khutahan, Dist-Bhojpur.

7. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Khutahan, District-Bhojpur.

8. The District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Bhojpur at Ara.

9. Manoj Kumar Yadav, Son of Shri Baban Singh, resident of Village-Shahpur Shobhi Tola, P.O.-Shahpur, District-Bhojpur.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anant Kumar Pandey For the Respondent/s : Mr. P.N.Sharma, AC to AG =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 20-04-2015 The findings are too glaring and speak for themselves under the circumstances and consideration which led to appointment of the present petitioner.

The findings of the Appellate Authority, Bhojpur at Ara is that the petitioner happened to be the son of the Panchayat Secretary and even though he has lesser marks than other candidates, by manipulating the records and selection process, his appointment was made. Despite repeated directions even of the Tribunal earlier and the Writ Court, the same was ignored. Therefore, it was a clear

Patna High Court CWJC No.5211 of 2015 dt.20-04-2015 2/2 case of favoritism and nepotism committed by the Panchayat Secretary, Sheojee Prasad Singh of Khutaha Panchayat. In the normal course of things, the said Panchayat Secretary should have been proceeded against departmentally and action taken but that is yet another issue. However, no interference is warranted with the findings given by the Tribunal, especially when the above facts are not disputed or denied even by the petitioner. Writ is dismissed.

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) sk U