KAVITA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra-Court appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 15.1.2015 passed by a learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C.No. 17698/2013, whereby the order of rejection to the appeal filed by the private respondent bearing Appeal No. 1665/2012 has been set aside and which is followed by a direction to the Panchayat Teachers Appointment Committee to consider the implementation of an earlier order passed by the appellate authority in Appeal No. 1330/2010 preferred by the appellant, whereby the Appointment Committee was directed to fill up the vacant post of a Panchayat Teacher in the Backward category from amongst those with merit points in the category including the claim of the appellant herein.

(2.) We fail to appreciate the cause of action for the appellant to move in appeal because it is in the implementation of that very order so referred to by the learned Single Judge in Appeal No. 1330/2010 and in course of its implementation that the Panchayat Teacher Appointment Committee made her appointment and on which post she still continues which appointment was not interfered with by the learned Single Judge.

(3.) Mr. Mrityunjay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, while accepting this position submits that it is in view of stigmatic reference made by the learned Single Judge at paragraphs 1 and 2 of the order at Page-2 which practically disqualifies her simply because the appellant happens to be the daughter of the Mukhiya even when neither the Service Rules regulating such appointment debars any such candidature nor any such objection was taken by any of the candidate (s) including the private respondent nor there is anything on record which would reflect nepotism by the Mukhiya. He submits that a simple co- incidence has led to such adverse opinion reflected in the order which has a prejudicial effect. Having noted the reasons for which this appeal has been filed we are persuaded to record certain relevant events which had led to the order impugned in this appeal which would have a bearing as to whether at all, there was a reason for interference by the learned Single Judge in a well discussed order of the Appellate Authority passed in Appeal No. 1665/2012.