Md. Muzammil Hussain v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15919 of 2019 ====================================================== Md. Muzammil Hussain S/o Md. Inamul Haque R/o Village and P.O. Dhangarha, P.S. Korohbari, District- Kishanganj. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Human Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Kishanganj. 3.

The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna. 4.

The District Magistrate, Kishanganj.

5.

The Deputy Development Commissioner, Kishanganj. 6.

The District Superintendent of Education, Kishanganj. 7.

The Block Development Officer, Dighal Bank, District- Kishanganj. 8.

The Block Education Extension Officer, Dighal Bank, District Kishanganj. 9.

The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Dhangarah, Block Dighalbank, District Kishanganj.

10.

Md. Abdus Salam S/o Md. Nezamuddin R/o Village Kathalbari, P.S. Bahadurganj, District- Kishanganj.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjay Singh For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Jitendra Kumar ( Sc13 ) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER 07-08-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

Petitioner has challenged the order passed by the State Appellate Authority in Appeal No. 191 of 2018. The State Appellate Authority on consideration of the various aspects of the matter held out that the counselling was not properly done. The candidates above in the merit list have been ignored. The Tribunal in the aforesaid circumstances

Patna High Court CWJC No.15919 of 2019(2) dt.07-08-2019 2/2 directed the Employment Unit to undertake fresh counselling for selection.

Considering the discussion made in the order of the State Appellate Authority, the Court is of the view that in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, the Court is not suppose to substitute its reasoning for the reasons discussed in the State Appellate Authority and as such the writ petition is dismissed.

(Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) Ravi/- U