Mustaque Alam vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 3 February, 2011

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                 CWJC No.8591 of 2010
                  1. MUSTAQUE ALAM, S/O LATE SADRE ALAM, R/O
                  COLLEGE CHOWK,WARD NO. 3, P.S. MADHEPURA,
                  DISTRICT MADHEPURA.
                                         Versus
                  1. THE STATE OF BIHAR.
                  2. THE COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY,
                  DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES,GOVT. OF
                  BIHAR, PATNA.
                  3. THE DIRECTOR, RASTRIYA NIYOJAN
                  KARYAKARAM, MADHEPURA.
                  4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MADHEPURA.
                  5. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, MADHEPURA.
                  6. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION SUPERINTENDENT CUM
                  CONVENOR, DISTRICT COMMITTEE SARVA SHIKSHA
                  ABHIYAN, MADHEPURA.
                  7. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, BLOCK
                  KUMARKHAND, DISTRICT MADHEPURA.
                  8. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION
                  OFFICER,BLOCK KUMARKHAND, DISTRICT
                  MADHEPURA.
                  9. THE MUKHIYA CUM CHAIRMAN, GRAM
                  PANCHAYAT BISHANPUR,KORLAHI,DISTRICT-
                  MADHEPURA.
                  10. THE PANCHAYAT SACHIV CUM MEMBER
                  TEACHERS SELECTION COMMITTEE,PANCHAYAT
                  BISHANPUR,KORLAHI,DISTRICT-MADHEPURA.
                  11. DISTRICT TEACHERS APPOINTMENT APPELLATE
                  TRIBUNAL,MADHEPURA.
                  12. SANTOSH KUMAR THAKUR, S/O SRI NARAYAN
                  THAKUR, R/O VILLAGE DHURGAON, P.S. BHARAHI,
                  O.P. DISTRICT MADHEPURA.
                                       -----------

2 03/02/2011 The Court does not find any infirmity in the

decision rendered by the District Teachers Appointment

Appellate Authority, Madhepura which is annexure-1

under challenge in the present writ application. This is
-2-

so in the background that the present petitioner stood

removed by the then Appellate Authority, namely, Block

Development Officer, Kumarkhand Block in the district

of Madhepura way back on 24.04.2008. That order was

not under challenge in any manner before the competent

court and when Santosh Kumar Thakur, private

respondent no. 12, moved the appellate authority now for

a direction for his appointment against the vacancy

caused by removal of the petitioner, petitioner has

approached the High Court seeking interference with the

said order.

So long as the earlier order passed by the Block

Development Officer, Kumarkhand stands, there is no

occasion for the District Teachers Appointment

Appellate Authority now to review that matter or sit in

appeal over that decision. The Authority has done no

wrong by giving a direction in favour of Santosh Kumar

Thakur because admittedly that vacancy exists due to

removal of the petitioner.

This writ application has no merit. It is

dismissed.

AMIN/                       (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)
 -3-