IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16587 of 2010 BINOD KUMAR MANDAL S/O BINDI LAL MANDAL R/O VILL BATHNAHA, P.S.KUNAULI, DISTT-SUPAUL Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SUPAUL 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION SUPAUL 5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER NIRMALI, DISTT- SUPAUL 6. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER NIRMALI, DISTT-SUPAUL 7. THE MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT KUNAULI, BLOCK- NIRMALI, P.S.KUNAULI, DISTT-SUPAUL 8. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT KUNAULI, P.S.KUNAULI, DISTT-SUPAUL 9. THE MEMBER DISTRICT TEACHERS APPOINTMENT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SUPAUL ----------- 2. 09.05.2011 Annexure 6 is the order of the Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Supaul. From the order sheet which has been annexed by the petitioner it is apparent that the matter was fixed on 11.09.2009 , 9.10.2009 and 9. 10.2009 since the petitioner was absent in all the dates his claim was rejected. In the writ application in paragraph 13 there is a categorical statement made on oath on behalf of the petitioner that no notice was ever issued or served upon the petitioner, therefore, he was not aware of date/dates fixed by the Tribunal. If the statement made by the petitioner is correct then the reason for rejection of the claim of the petitioner as per Annexure 6 is misplaced but if what has been stated in paragraph 13 is incorrect no interference with Annexure-6 is required. Petitioner is however, 2 given indulgence to appear with a copy of the order before the Appellate Authority. Appellate Authority will verify from records the assertion made in paragraph 13 about non-issuance of service of notice upon the petitioner. If assertion is found to be true matter would be required to be heard on merit afresh. Writ is disposed of with the above observation. Prakash ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)