IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8376 of 2008 ASHA KUMARI, W/O MANOJ KUMAR, R/O VILLAGE- MAKHDUMPUR, P.S.-KARAI PARSURAI, DISTRICT- NALANDA. …………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. SECRETARY, PRIMARY AND ADULT EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NALANDA. 4. CHAIRMAN, SARVA SHIKSHA ABHIYAN, NALANDA. 5. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION- CUM-CO-ORDINATOR, SARVA SHIKSHA ABHIYAN, NALANDA. 6. DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, NALANDA. 7. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, KARAI PARSURAI, DISTRICT-NALANDA. 8. PRAKHAND PROGRAMME OFFICER-CUM-BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, KARAI PARSURAI, NALANDA. 9. MUKHIYA, MAKHDUMPUR GRAM PANCHAYAT, KARAI PARSURAI BLOCK, DISTRICT-NALANDA. 10. GRAM SEWAK-CUM-SECRETARY, SARVA SHIKSHA ABHIYAN, MAKHDUMPUR GRAM PANCHAYAT, KARAI PARSURAI BLOCK, DISTRICT-NALANDA. 11. SUKH SUBIDHA COMMITTEE THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, MAKHDUMPUR GRAM PANCHAYAT, KARAI PARSURAI BLOCK, DISTRICT-NALANDA. 12. CHAIRMAN, SUKH SUBIDHA COMMITTEE MAKHDUMPUR GRAM PANCHAYAT, KARAI PARSURAI BLOCK, DISTRICT-NALANDA. ……………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 3 16.08.2011 From the order of the Mukhiya dated 30.06.2007 (Annexure-3), it appears that the selection of the petitioner was cancelled on account of she having less than 45% marks in the Intermediate. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in spite of the said 2 cancellation, petitioner continued and thereafter she was sent for training some time after 30th July, 2008. In support of this submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a photocopy of the letter no. 365 dated 30.07.2008 of the Block Education Extension Officer addressed to the District Programme Officer. However, he submits that he could not get instructions from the petitioner as to what happened after the said letter of the Block Education Extension Officer was issued and he has no information with regard to the later developments. It may be that on account of change of policy of the Government petitioner may have been subsequently allowed to attend the training course. But the fact remains that there is nothing on record to show that the order of cancellation of her engagement passed by the Mukhiya was later on recalled and petitioner has been again reinstated in service. In the circumstances, if the petitioner still has any grievance she may 3 move the statutory Appellate Authority constituted in terms of amendment in 2006 Rules. If she does so within four weeks from today, the Appellate Authority shall issue notice to the concerned parties giving them opportunity to be heard, shall call for the relevant records, if necessary, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law on merits within two months from the date of filing of appeal/representation by the petitioner. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Arvind/ ( J.N. Singh, J.)