- (1.) THIS appeal has been pre ferred by the appellant Minakshi Kumar; against the Judgment and Order dated 3.12.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 968 of 2008 by which the learned Single Judge has been pleased to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondent no. 3, the District Superintendent of Education, Dumka to consider the petitioner's/appellant's claim for her appointment as Para Teacher in a Primary School and pass appropriate orders after granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/appellant. This exercise was to be carried out by the District Superintendent of Education, Dumka within three months from the date of the order.
(2.) THE petitioner/appellant, in spite of the aforesaid liberty granted by the learned Single Judge, has not approached the respondent no. 3 for availing the op - portunity of hearing to protect her appointment but she has preferred this appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge in support of which it is contended that the petitioner/appellant in the first place was not granted the opportunity of hearing as a result of which she could not explain it to the authorities that she has a rightful claim to the post of Para Teacher as her residence was on the nearest point of the school where she was required to teach. To explain the position further, it may be relevant to state that one of the conditions for appointment as Para Teacher in the School was that the applicants residence, as far as possible, should have been in the same village where the school is situated and as per the appellant's contention, her residence although was not in the same village, the residence of the other two applicants also was not in that village. However, this hurdle was sought to be obviated by urging that the petitioner's/appellant's residence although was not in the village, she was residing at the nearest point of the school and the residence of other applicants were at a much greater distance. Besides this, the other applicants did not even participate in the selection process and the challenge to the appellant's appointment at their instance ought not to have been entertained by the learned Single Judge.
(3.) SINCE the petitioner took the plea before the learned Single Judge that she did not get adequate opportunity of explaining her position due to which the order of cancellation of her appointment was passed, the learned Single Judge considered it appropriate to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to approach the District Superintendent of Education, Dumka where he was directed to examine her claim.;