IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8456 of 2009 SANJAY KUMAR SANGAM, S/O SWARUP LAL PRASAD, R/O RUIDHASHA, P.S.-KISHANGANJ, DISTRICT- KISHANGANJ. ……………………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KISHANGANJ. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, KISHANGANJ. 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION/SUB-DIVISIONAL EDUCATION OFFICER, KISHANGANJ. 5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER-CUM- APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KISHANGANJ. 6. THE MEMBER OF DISTRICT TEACHER EMPLOYMENT APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KISHANGANJ. 7. THE CHAIRMAN-CUM-MUKHIYA GRAM PANCHAYAT, CHAKLA, KISHANGANJ. 8. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, SACHIV GRAM PANCHAYAT CHAKLA. 9. BIJAY KUMAR, R/O VILLAGE-MADARPUR, P.O.- LALBAG, DISTRICT-DARBHANGA. …………RESPONDENTS. With CWJC No.18433 of 2009 VIJAY KUMAR, S/O LATE BISHWANATH SAH, R/O VILLAGE-MADARPUR, P.S.-LALBAG, DISTRICT- DARBHANGA. ………………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, KISHANGANJ. 5. THE MEMBER, DISTRICT (TEACHERS APPOINTMENT), APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KISHANGANJ. 6. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, KISHANGANJ. 7. THE BLOCK EDUCATION AND EXTENSION OFFICER, KISHANGANJ. 8. THE MUKHIYA GRAM, GRAM PANCHAYAT CHAKLA, KISHANGANJ. 9. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT CHAKLA, KISHANGANJ. 10.SANJAY KUMAR ‘SANGAM’, R/O VILLAGE- RUIDHASHA, P.S.-KISHANGANJ, DISTRICT- KISHANGANJ. ……………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2 For the Petitioner : Mr.Pankaj Kumar Sinha, Adv. and Mr.Diwakar Sinha, Adv. For the State : Mr.Kumar Pankaj, AC to SC-XVI. (in CWJC No.8456 of 2009) For the Petitioner : Mr.Pramod Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr.Sunil Kumar Mandal, SC-XV and Mr.Arjun Prasad, AC To SC-XV. (in CWJC No. 18433 of 2009) ------------- 3 21.09.2010 In both the writ applications the same order of the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Kishanganj dated 16.04.2009 is under challenge. Petitioner of the first case has challenged the impugned order on the ground that though his earlier order of termination passed by the B.D.O., as communicated by Annexure-5, which was passed behind his back, and against which he had filed this appeal, has been found to be bad and in violation of Principles of Natural Justice. Still the Appellate Authority has not directed to restore him in service and has directed for fresh counselling. The second petitioner has challenged this order on the ground that no opportunity was granted to him and he was not noticed before this order was passed, though the 3 appointment of the first petitioner was cancelled by the B.D.O. on his complaint which was under consideration by the Appellate Authority and, therefore, he should have been noticed and heard in the matter. It is also submitted on his behalf that the findings of the Appellate Authority in the impugned order that he had not appeared in the counselling and had filed his complaint for the first time after three months is an apparent error of record. In support of this submission, he has referred to Annexure-2, 3, 4 and 5 of the second writ application to contend that the notice for appearance in the counseling dated 25.02.2007 was received by him on 26.02.2007 i.e. one day after the counselling. He accordingly filed his complaint within a week i.e. on 02.03.2007 before the B.D.O. who was at that time the Appellate Authority under the law. The same was entertained and the B.D.O. vide his letter dated 15.03.2007, as contained in Annexure-5, directed the Block Education Extension Officer to hold an enquiry and submit a report. The Block Education Extension Officer accordingly, submitted his 4 report on 19.03.2007, vide Annexure-6. In the report, it was pointed out that the first petitioner was not in panel at all and the second petitioner was in the panel. Learned counsel for the second petitioner submits that these documents show that notice of counselling was received by the second petitioner after the date of counseling and he had promptly filed his complaint before the B.D.O. which was entertained enquired into and then only order was passed cancelling the appointment of first petitioner. He submits that since the second petitioner was not noticed by the Appellate Authority, while considering the appeal of the first petitioner, and he was not given any opportunity to be heard and produce materials in support of his case, this error of record cropped up in the order and the Appellate Authority came to a wrong conclusion that the second petitioner had not appeared in the counselling and had filed his complaint three months after. From the impugned order of the Appellate Authority, it appears that the Appellate Authority only heard the concerned 5 Panchayat Secretary, Mukhiya and learned counsel for the first petitioner and has passed orders on that basis alone. From the impugned order, it does not appear that the entire original records were called for and were examined by the Appellate Authority and the order shows that the documents produced by the Panchayat Secretary and Mukhiya were only perused. It also appears that he did not try to find out as to on what basis the Block Development Officer had issued the earlier order and what was the complaint of the second petitioner before him and when the same was received. It appears that it was only on the submission made before the Appellate Authority that the second petitioner had not appeared in the counselling and had filed his complaint three months after, the Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the complaint of the second petitioner was wrong. In all propriety the Appellate Authority ought to have called for the original records from the office of the B.D.O. and ought to have examined the original records with regard to issue of 6 notice of counselling and service of the same on the respective candidates and other connected records of the Panchayat. In the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the Appellate Authority should re-examine the matter on merits after calling for the entire records from the different offices including the office of the B.D.O. and peruse the same and also hear both the petitioners or their representatives and pass the fresh orders. As a result, the order dated 16.04.2009 passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority in Appeal No. 214 of 2009 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Appellate Authority to consider the same on merits afresh as per the orders of this Court. Both the writ applications are disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)