IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5845 of 2008 Ritu Prabha, Daughter of Shri Nageshwar Roy, wife of Harsh Kumar Roy, resident of village Manikpur Musharnia, P.O. Andouli, P.S. Parihar, District- Sitamarhi. ………….. Petitioner Versus 1.The State Of Bihar through the Secretary, Human Resources & Development Department, Patna 2.The Secretary, Human Resources & Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3.The Deputy Development Commissioner, Sitamarhi 4.The District Superintendent of Education, Sitamarhi 5.The District Education Officer, Sitamarhi 6.The Block Education Establishment/Employment Committee, Parihar Block, Sitamarhi, through its Secretary 7.The Block Education Extension Officer, Parihar Block, Sitamarhi 8.The Headmaster, Middle School Shivnagar, Parihar Block, Sitamarhi. ………….. Respondents ----------- 2. 21/07/2011 Petitioner has challenged the order of the Deputy Development Commissioner, Sitamarhi dated 17.1.2008, as contained in Annexure-1, by which appointment of as many as 63 Panchayat Teachers has been cancelled which includes petitioner also. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before cancellation of their engagement, no notice was issued to them and they were not heard. He also submits that at the relevant time when the Deputy Development Commissioner had passed orders, he had only appellate powers in the matters decided by the appointing authority i.e. the Panchayat Samiti. He refers to an order of the Chief Secretary dated 5.6.2007, as 2 contained in Annexure-9, to show that it was accepted by the Government that the power to cancel the appointment of Panchayat Teachers lay only in the appointing authority and not any other authority. On the basis of this order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was Panchayat Samiti which ought to have considered the validity of the engagement of the petitioner and others and it ought to have passed orders against which only the Deputy Development Commissioner had powers to hear appeals. Learned counsel for the petitioner may be right on both counts. Order of the Deputy Development Commissioner does not show that notices were issued to any of the Panchayat Teachers whose engagement was cancelled. Hence, there is apparent violation of the Principles of Natural Justice in the matter. In the circumstances, this Court, in normal course, after quashing the order, would have remitted the matter back either to the same authority or to the Panchayat Samiti. However, now under the Rules, as amended in 2008, a statutory Appellate Authority has been constituted by the State Government comprising of three Members. The three Members of the Appellate Authority have to 3 be selected from Judicial Service, Administrative Service/Education Service and one Academician. Thus, it appears that the Government intended to constitute a competent body to go into the dispute with regard to engagement and service conditions of Panchayat Teachers in depth and decide the matter on merits in accordance with law. In the circumstances, this Court considers it appropriate that the petitioner should also approach the concerned Appellate Authority raising her grievances in respect of her disengagement. If she does so within six weeks from today, the Appellate Authority shall be obliged to call for the original records, issue notice to the parties and shall thereafter decide the matter in accordance with law, preferably within a period of two months from the date of appearance of the petitioner before it. For this purpose, the impugned order of the Deputy Development Commissioner shall be treated as quashed. However, petitioner shall not be entitled for her reinstatement or any monetary benefits till the matter is finally decided by the Appellate Authority afresh. Pradeep/ ( J. N. Singh,J.)