IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.217 of 2010 Sanjeev Kumar, Son of Kameshwar Prasad Singh, R/o Village Bishunpur, P.S. Hulasganj, District Jahanabad, Bihar............................Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Director, Primary Education, Old Secretariat, Patna. 2. The District Collector, Jahanabad, Bihar. 3. The Chairman/Member, District Teachers’ Employment Appellate Authority, Jahanabad, Near Bharat Petrol Pump, Patna Gaya Road, Jahanabad. 4. The District Education Superintendent, Jahanabad, Bihar. 5. The Block Education Extension Officer, Hulasganj, Jahanabad. 6. Smt. Vibha Kumari, Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Khudauri, Jahanabad. 7. Smt. Krishna Kumari, D/o Praduman Sharma, R/o Sultanpur, Post Bhagwanpur, District Jahanabad. 8. Vimal Kumar, S/o Braj Bhushan Sharma, R/o Dadpur, Post Bauri Belwari, District Jahanabad. 9. Smt. Rita Kumari, R/o Village & Post Bauri, District Jahanabad. 10. Smt. Mamta Kumari, W/o Braj Kumar, R/o Sultanpur, Post Bhagwanpur, P.S. Hulasganj, District Jahanabad………………………………Respondents --------- 5 12.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. The Appellate Authority, by the impugned order contained in Memo No.811 dated 08.10.2009, has held the appointment of petitioner as Panchayat Teacher illegal and has held the appointment of respondent 2 no.8 as valid. It is not denied by any of the parties that before holding the appointment of the petitioner as illegal, neither any notice was issued to him by the Appellate Authority nor any opportunity was granted to him to be heard in the matter. In the circumstances, complete violation of Principles of Natural Justice is admitted by the parties in this case. The impugned order is, therefore, quashed on that ground alone. The matter is remitted back to the Appellate Authority, which shall give opportunity to all the parties concerned and decide the matter afresh in accordance with law on merits positively within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in spite of the interim order dated 06.05.2010 in favour of the petitioner, he has not been paid his salary although he has continued to work. It goes without saying that if the order of the Appellate Authority goes in 3 favour of the petitioner, he shall be entitled to entire admissible salary for the period he has actually worked. This writ application is allowed in the manner indicated above. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)