IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 1222 of 2010 1. NEELAM KUMARI W/O MANOJ KUMAR R/O VILL BATRAULI,P.S.RUNNISAIDPUR,DISTT-SITAMARHI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCE AND DEVELOPMENT DEPT. GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR ,PRIMARY EDUCATION BIHAR,PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINENDENT OF EDUCATION SITAMARHI 5. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SITAMARHI 6. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER RUNNISAIDPUR 7. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER RUNNISAIDPUR 8. THE MUKHIYA GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ BARHETA VILLAGE MAUNA,P.S./BLOCK RUNNISAIDPUR,DISTT-SITAMARHI 9. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY BARHETA GRAM PANCHAYAT,P.S.BLOCK,RUNNISAIDPUR, DISTT-SITAMARHI ----------- 2 25.06.2010 The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Block Development Officer (BDO), Runnisaidpur, District – Sitamarhi as communicated to her under Memo No 2390 dated 04.12.2008. By the aforesaid order, the appointment of petitioner as a Panchayat Teacher has been set aside. Mr Chitranjan Sinha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order impugned and the order as passed by the District Panchayat Teachers Appellate Tribunal which refuses to interfere cannot be sustained on the simple ground that the orders being of the nature of a quasi judicial order could not be passed without noticing the petitioner or hearing her in the matter. With consent of parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself as apparently the facts are not in dispute. The petitioner and one Nibha Kumari contested for appointment to the post of Panchayat Teacher. Petitioner was selected and appointment letter issued. She joined and was working. The said Nibha Kumari then approached this Court in CWJC No 11728 of 2008 2 challenging the appointment of petitioner and her non-selection. This Court, by order dated 22.09.2008, disposed of the writ petition directing the BDO, Runnisaidpur, Sitamarhi to dispose of the representation of the said Nibha Kumari by a speaking order within a period of four weeks. Upon this order being passed, the said Nibha Kumari then approached the BDO who called for the records, examined the matter and then passed the impugned order, as contained in Annexure-3 aforesaid. By the said order, he has held that there being only one post and apparently Nibha Kumari being more meritorious, appointment of petitioner was not correct. He, accordingly, set aside the appointment of petitioner. From the order itself, it appears that petitioner was not even noticed in the matter much less heard. Her appointment was cancelled behind her back. This is what is assailed by the petitioner. It may be noted that against the said order, petitioner came to this Court and this Court directed the petitioner to prefer appeal before the District Appellate Authority. When the petitioner approached the District Appellate Authority, the District Appellate Authority refused to interfere on the ground that the BDO had passed orders pursuant to directions of this Court which could not be interfered by the appellate authority. I may also note that the reason and the logic given by the appellate authority are totally misconceived. Appellate Authority is a statutory jurisdiction to resolve dispute. It was bound to entertain the appeal and decide it on merits. That is its statutory function. If the order of an Authority, subordinate to Appellate Authority, is not an order and a lis is brought before it, it has got to decide. Merely because this Court had directed the BDO to pass order does not mean that the 3 orders were of this Court and could not be interfered. In any view of the matter, as apparent, the order of the BDO has been passed adverse to the interest of the petitioner without even hearing her, as such, is in gross violation of principles of natural justice. Such an order is void ab initio. It is, accordingly, so held and quashed. The order does not direct issuance of appointment letter to Nibha Kumari and, therefore, this Court has not considered the necessity of hearing Nibha Kumari in the matter. Matter is now remanded to BDO, Runnisaidpur for fresh consideration after hearing necessary parties. Such hearing must be done at the earliest preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before him and till final orders are passed by the BDO, pursuant to orders of this Court, petitioner would be deemed to be in service. With these observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)