IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15024 of 2010 1. SHEELA KUSHWAHA W/O KAUSHAL KISHORE BHAKTA R/O VILL.- GONTHI, P.O.- BANDHU SRI RAM, P.S.- ANDAR, DISTT.- SIWAN Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SIWAN 5. THE DISTRICT TEACHERS APPOINTMENT APPELLATE AUTHORITY DISTT.- SIWAN THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN 6. THE MEMBER THE DISTRICT TEACHER APPOINTMENT APPELLATE AUTHORITY, DISTT.- SIWAN 7. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, DISTT.- SIWAN 8. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BLOCK- JERADEI, DISTT.- SIWAN 9. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER BLOCK-JERADEI, DISTT.- SIWAN 10. THE MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ MIYAN KE BHATKAN, BLOCK-JERADEI, DISTT.-SIWAN 11. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, MIYAN KE BHATKAN, BLOCK- JERADEI, DISTT.- SIWAN 12. SRI RAM KUMAR YADAV S/O LATE NATHUNI YADAV R/O VILL.- BANTHU, P.S.- ANDAR, DISTT.- SIWAN ----------- 2 26/04/2011 The order under challenge is contained in annexure-7. This is an order passed by the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority, Siwan contained in Memo No. 1130 dated 31.10.2009. By - 2 - virtue of this order appointment of large number of candidates on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra came to be annulled by the Appellate Authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner produces a copy of the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 15745 of 2009 dated 26.11.2010 which was filed by 21 petitioners against the same order. Some how the present petitioner could not become a party to the said writ application. After hearing all the parties to the dispute including the private respondents at whose instance the proceeding was initiated before the Appellate Authority, the Court came to a considered opinion that since the order was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to any of those affected persons, therefore, that was a good ground to interfere with the impugned order. The Court also observed that since the issue of such appointment has been raised at a very belated stage which is almost after four years of such appointment, the Court did not remand the matter back for fresh consideration but ordered reinstatement of those petitioners back to the post. Case of the present petitioner is no different - 3 - because she also is a victim of the same order which has been set aside or interfered with by the High Court in yet another writ application. In view of the reasonings given by the Court in C.W.J.C. No. 15745 of 2009 the present writ application is also allowed. Impugned order contained in annexure-7 is quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner just like the rest forthwith. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)