IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6820 of 2007 SMT.RINA KUMARI, DAUGHTER OF SHIV SHANKAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MURLICHANDWA, P.O. MURLICHANDWA, POLICE STATION UDAKISHUNGANJ, DISTRICT MADHEPURA……….PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY-CUM-COMMISSIONER, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIATE, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, EDUCATION, KOSI DIVISION, SAHARSA 5. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MADHEPURA 6. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, MADHEPURA 7. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, PURAINI, POLICE STATION PURAINI, DISTRICT MADHEPURA 8. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY-CUM-MEMBER SECRETARY, EDUCATION COMMITTEE, VILLAGE PANCHAYAT NARDAH, POLICE STATION PURAINI, DISTRICT MADHEPURA 9. THE CHAIRMAN, PANCHAYAT TEACHER SELECTION COMMITTEE, VILLAGE PANCHAYAT NARDAH, P.S. PURAINI, DISTRICT MADHEPURA 10. THE SELECTION COMMITTEE OF PANCHAYAT TEACHER THROUGH THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, VILLAGE PANCHAYAT NARDAH, POLICE STATION PURAINI, DISTRICT MADHEPURA 11. THE HEADMASTER, PRIMARY SCHOOL, SRIPURTOLA, GRAM PANCHAYAT NARDAH, P.S. PURAINI, DISTRICT MADHEPURA 12. KUMARI MANJU SUGAM, WIFE OF SUJEET KUMAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NARDAH, P.O. NAYA TOLA, POLICE STATION PURAINI, DISTRICT MADEHPURA……..RESPONDENTS ----------- 2. 19.08.2009 Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State informs - 2 - this Court that now Appellate Authorities constituted by the State Government under Rule 18 of the Bihar Panchayat Prarambhik Shikshak (Niyojan Avam Seva Sart) Niyamvali, 2006 are functional and are now efficacious alternative forums available to the petitioner and others for consideration of their grievances. On facts, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order as contained in Annexure-3 was issued by the Panchayat Secretary on the dictates of the Collector, Madhepura for which the Collector, Madhepura has no authority to do. He also submits that as respondent no.12 had not appeared in the Counselling, petitioner was appointed and, therefore, appointment of the petitioner was valid. In view of the submissions of the learned counsels and in view of the availability of the efficacious alternative forum, the writ application is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate application before the concerned Authority, if not already filed, for redressal of her grievances. In case such an application is filed by the petitioner, - 3 - the Authority shall make all endeavours to dispose of the same on its own merits by a speaking order preferably within the time prescribed under the Rules for the purpose. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the merits of the claim of the petitioner. B.T (J.N. Singh, J.)