IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15221 of 2007 Kiran Kumari, wife of navin Kumar Jha, daughter of Sri Bhola Jha, resident of Village Raghunathpur, P.O. Chakhaji, P.S. Samastipur, Dist. Samastipur. --------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. Director, Primary Education, Deptt. Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. District Magistrate cum Collector, Samastipur. 5. District Superintendent of Education, Samastipur. 6. Block Education Officer, Samastipur, Block, Dist. Samastipur. 7. Mukhiya Gram Panchayat rupnarayanpur Bela, P.S. and Dist. Samastipur. 8. Sambhu Prasad Singh, son of Chandeshwar Singh, resident of Village Chakhaji, P.S. and Dist. Samastipur. --------- Respondents ----------- 5 21.7.2011 Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into account that the petitioner has a statutory alternative remedy as against the impugned order dated 27.9.2007 canceling her appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra as also her subsequent absorption as a Panchayat Shikshak, this Court would give liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned District Teachers Appellate Authority, which shall examine the grievance of the petitioner on merit if a complaint is filed by the petitioner within a period of one month from today. It is, however, made clear that the authority shall decide the issue independently without being influenced by any 2 observation made by the Collector in the order terminating the services of the petitioner. The authority shall also issue notice and give opportunity of hearing to Sambhu Prasad Singh on whose complaint the petitioner’s appointment came to be cancelled. Before parting with, this Court must make it clear that this liberty is being given to the petitioner in view of the fact that the impugned order was passed without giving her any notice and/or opportunity of hearing and, therefore, even if the Collector’s reasoning for canceling the appointment of the petitioner may be correct, the petitioner will have a right to be heard. If the Tribunal, therefore, would come to a conclusion that the appointment of the petitioner was justified, it could also direct for her reinstatement but, in that event, the petitioner will not be entitled for any back wages. With the aforementioned observations and liberty, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)