IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13291 of 2009 1. ARCHANA KUMARI W/O KESHAV KUAMR VILL- SUNDARPUR RATWARA, P.S- PIAR, DISTT- MUZAFFARPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE MUZAFFARPUR 3. THE DISTRICT TEACHERS EMPLOYMENT APPELLATE AUTHORITY MUZAFFARPUR 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION MUZAFFARPUR 5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BANDRA, DISTT- MUZAFFARPUR 6. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER BANDRA, DISTT- MUZAFFARPUR 7. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY PANCHAYAT RAJ, SUNDARPUR RATWARA, DISTT- MUZAFFARPUR 8. THE MUKHIYA PANCHAYAT RAJ, SUNDARPUR RATWARA, P.S- PIAR, DISTT- MUZAFFARPUR 9. RAJIV KUMAR S/O SHEO CHANDRA THAKUR VILL- SUNDARPUR RATWARA, VIA-PIAR, DISTT- MUZAFFARPUR 10. RAJESH KUMAR S/O RAJ MANGAL PRASAD THAKUR VILL- SUNDARPUR RATWARA, P.S- PIAR, DISTT- MUZAFFARPUR 11. PALLAVI RANI D/O ASHOK KUMAR THAKUR VILL- SUNDARPUR RATWARA, VIA-PIAR, DISTT- MUZAFFARPUR ----------- 2 6.1.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the State. Petitioner has filed this application for a limited relief. The relief prayed by the petitioner is for a direction to the District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal, Muzaffarpur to entertain appeal preferred by the petitioner as it has been done in case of petitioner of CWJC No.5236 of 2007. Earlier the appointment of petitioner and some similarly situated persons as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra and 2 subsequently absorbed on the post of Panchayat Teacher was challenged by respondent nos. 8 and 9 by filing CWJC No. 14255 of 2006. The writ application was disposed of giving direction to the competent authority to look into the matter and decide the issue. Though at the relevant time the District Magistrate was not a competent authority under Rule 18 of 2006 Rule but the Block Development Officer was the competent authority, still the District Magistrate decided the issue wrongly, interpreting the direction of this Court. The order passed by the District Magistrate was challenged by some of the aggrieved persons by filing CWJC No. 5236 of 2007, which was also disposed of giving direction to the petitioner to move before the District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal for redressal of their grievances. The Tribunal, in the light of the direction of this Court has entertained appeal of only such persons, who had earlier challenged the order passed by the District Magistrate, by filing a writ application. Since the petitioner did not prefer any writ application, her appeal is not being entertained by the Tribunal. I feel that the Tribunal has adopted too technical approach in this matter. Once the direction has been issued by this Court in case of similarly situated persons, the 3 appeal preferred by the petitioner against the same impugned order should not have been refused on the ground that the petitioner has not approached the High Court, challenging the order passed by the District Magistrate. In case of similarly situated person, similar stand should have been taken by the Tribunal. Accordingly, this application is being allowed directing the District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal, Muzaffarpur to entertain appeal preferred by the petitioner and for deciding the same on merit, in accordance with law, within the statutory period. (Mridula Mishra,J.) A.kumar