SUNIL KUMAR, Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and State.

(2.) The petitioner has moved the Court for the following reliefs:-

(3.) The petitioner, who is the Block Development Officer of Shivsagar Block in the district of Rohtas, had written a letter to the Mukhiya and Panchayat Secretary of Gram Panchayat Raj, Selari in the same block with regard to the appointment of Panchayat Teachers. The controversy relates to the respondents no. 9 and 10 being candidates for such post under the Scheduled Caste category and in an earlier round of litigation before the High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 20232 of 2010, the respondent no. 9, who was the petitioner was successful and the appointment of respondent no. 10 was set aside with a direction that fresh counselling be conducted for the post of Panchayat Teacher in question. Pursuant thereto, the respondent no. 9 was also appointed on the said post. Thereafter, the respondent no. 10, after almost two years, filed a complaint before the B.D.O. (petitioner ) and the petitioner in turn wrote to the Mukhiya as well as the Panchayat Secretary (respondents no. 6 and 7) giving the brief background of the controversy and directing for further action relating to appointment on the said post. This resulted in the respondent no. 9 being removed from the post and the respondent no. 10 again being appointed. The respondent no. 9 being aggrieved, moved before the Lokayukta, Bihar and in the proceedings, a report was called from the authorities and upon appearance of the petitioner, further one month time was given to file reply and at the same time, it was observed that on the basis of the enquiry report of the District Education Officer, Rohtas dated 27.02017, the pendency of enquiry before the Lokayukta shall not stand in the way of the Controlling Department of the petitioner proceeding in accordance with law and further the Principal Secretary of the Rural Development Department, Bihar, Patna was required to inform the Lokayukta with regard to the action taken in light of the said report of the District Education Officer, Rohtas dated 27.02017. The petitioner is aggrieved by such observations and has assailed the same in the present writ application.