SUDHIHAR KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the outset, it may be pointed out that the present order is being passed with the consent of all the parties.

(2.) The present case has a chequered history inasmuch as in the first round of litigation, the second phase of teachers' appointment of the year 2008, pertaining to the employment unit, Akbarpur, Block- Akbarpur, District Nawada was under challenge before the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Nawadah by way of Appeal Case No. 222 of 2011 and Appeal Case No. 21 of 2012, filed at the behest of various unsuccessful candidates. The District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Nawadah by an order dated 7.11.2012 had found merit in the aforesaid appeals and directed for initiation of fresh selection process pertaining to the vacant posts of the year 2008 in connection with the Block Employment Unit, Akbarpur. It appears that the aforesaid order dated 7.11.2012 was not complied by the respondent State Authorities, which led to filing of a writ petition bearing CWJC No. 22260 of 2013, before this Court and a co-ordinate Bench of this Court by an order dated 31.07.2014 directed the Employment Agency to comply with the aforesaid order of the learned District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Nawadah dated 7.11.2012 and take steps under the Rules for filling the available vacancies of the year 2008 afresh, in case the aforesaid order of the appellate authority is still in operation and has not been rescinded, recalled or reviewed till now.

(3.) It appears that in the meantime, certain unsuccessful candidates had also approached this Court by filing a writ petition bearing CWJC No. 8816 if 2013, however, a co- ordinate Bench of this Court by an order dated 14.7.2015 had directed such unsuccessful candidates to withdraw the writ petition and move the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Nawadah, consequent whereof an appeal bearing Appeal No. 16 of 2015 was filed, however, the appellate authority by an order dated 28.9.2015 had abdicated from exercising its powers by not deciding the appeal on merits and instead, on the pretext that the original copy of the select list has not been filed and only photostat copy of the same has been filed, had refused to interfere in the matter and had dismissed the appeal on the said sole ground only.