IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.6942 of 2008 1.Seema Kumari Daughter of Sri Daroga Singh, wife of Sri Dinesh Singh, resident of village Murharia, P.O. Kathej, P.s. Mohania, District- Kaimur at Bhabua 2.Poonam Devi, Daughter of Sri Sudama Roy, wife of Sri Bipin Bihari Singh, resident of village+P.O. Ankorhi, P.s. Mohania, District- Kaimur at Bhabua 3.Santosh Kumar, son of Sri Prem Shankar Lal, resident of village + P.O. Kathej, P.s. Mohania, District- Kaimur at Bhabua 4.Meena Kumari, Daughter of Sri Saryoo Pal, resident of village Lalpur, P.S.+P.O. Kudra, District- Kaimur at Bhabua 5.Kumari Chanda Bharati, Daughter of Sri Bhagwan Ram, resident of village Ameth, P.O. Bhiti, P.S. Mohania, District- Kaimur at Bhabua. ……………. Petitioners Versus 1.The State Of Bihar 2.The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna 3.The District Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabua 4.The District Superintendent of Education-cum-Sub- Divisional Education Officer, Bhabua, District- Kaimur 5.The Block Development Officer, Mohania, District- Kaimur 6.The Block Education Extension Officer, Mohania, District- Kaimur 7.The Panchayat Secretary of the Gram Panchayat Kathej, P.s. Mohania, District- Kaimur at Bhabua 8.The Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat, Kathej, P.s. Mohania, District- Kaimur at Bhabua. ……………. Respondents ---------------------------------- 3. 01/08/2011 Petitioners are aggrieved by the order of the District Superintendent of Education- cum-Sub-Divisional Education Officer, Bhabua dated 14.9.2007, as contained in Annexure-1, by which their appointments as Panchayat Teachers have been cancelled taking into 2 account an enquiry report. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that an enquiry was held behind the back of the petitioners and before passing impugned order also no notice was issued to them. In the circumstances, he submits that the impugned order is in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice. Learned counsel for the petitioners may be right. The order does not show that any notice was issued to the petitioners after enquiry report was received by the authorities concerned. In normal course, this Court would have quashed the order and remitted the matter back to the same authority for giving an opportunity to the petitioners to be heard and then to pass fresh orders. However, now that a statutory Appellate Authority has been constituted in terms of 2008 amendment in the Rules, it would be appropriate for the petitioners to approach the concerned Appellate Authority raising their grievances. In the circumstances, this writ application is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to approach the concerned 3 Appellate Authority against the said enquiry report as well as order of the District Superintendent of Education within four weeks from today. If they do so, the Appellate Authority shall consider the same on merits, issue notice to the concerned parties giving them opportunity to be heard, call for the original records, if necessary, and thereafter decide the matter on merits without going into the question of limitation and without being swayed away by the impugned order, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of filing of appeal/ representation by the petitioners. Pradeep/ ( J. N. Singh,J.)