IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12913 of 2009 1. RANJAN KUMAR BAITHA S/o Sri Laxmi Baitha, resident of village-Machhpakauni, P.S. Bela, Dist-Sitamarhi. 2. Ramkali Kumari Choudhary W/o Sri Ram Naresh Choudhary, resident of Village-Shiv Nagar, P.s. Bela, Dist-Sitamarhi. 3. Pramila Kumari W/o Sri Amresh Kumar, resident of village- Kanhama, P.s. Bela, Dist-Sitamarhi. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. Principal Secretary, H.R.D Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Sitamarhi. 4. District Supe. Of Education Sitamarhi. 5. Block Development Officer, Parihar, dist-Sitamarhi. 6.DistWelfareOffiicer,Sitamarhi. with CWJC No.12939 of 2009 1. KISHORI PRASAD SAH, son of Late Uttim Sah, resident of villagte-Machhpakauni, P.O. Bela Machhpakauni, P.S. Bela, Dist- Sitamarhi. 2. Ram Gyan Yadav, son of Late Ram Singhasan Yadav resident of village-Gauhaurwa, Bishaunpur, P.S. Bela, Dist-Sitamarhi. Versus 1THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2 Principal Secretary, H.R.D Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3 District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Sitamarhi. 4District Supe. Of Education Sitamarhi. 5Block Development Officer, Parihar, dist-Sitamarhi. 6. DistWelfareOffiicer,Sitamarhi. with CWJC No.15001 of 2009 SAKILA KHATOON W/O Md. Nasim Akhtar, resident of village- Machhpakouni, P.S. Bela, Dist-Sitamarhi. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. Principal Secretary, H.R.D Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Sitamarhi. 4. District Supe. Of Education Sitamarhi. 5. Block Development Officer, Parihar, dist-Sitamarhi. 6. DistWelfareOffiicer,Sitamarhi. with CWJC No.5341 of 2010 KUMARI SHIKHA W/o Chandragupta, resident of village Ringbandh, P.S. Sitamarhi, dist-Sitamarhi. 2 Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. Principal Secretary, H.R.D Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Sitamarhi. 4. District Supe. Of Education Sitamarhi. 5. Block Development Officer, Parihar, dist-Sitamarhi. 6.DistWelfareOffiicer,Sitamarhi. with CWJC No.230 of 2010 1. MD.IMTIAYZ AHMAD S/o Md. Muslim, R/o village Ekandi, P.O. & P.S Parihar, Dist-Sitamarhi. 2. Mahesh Kumar, S/O Sri Chandeshwasr Mahtro, R/o Vill& Parihar, Dist-Sitamarhi. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the District Magistrate, Sitamarhi. 2. The District Magistrate, Sitamarhi 3. The District Superintendent of Education, Sitamarhi 4. The Block Extension Eduction Officer, Parihar, Sitamarhi. 5. Sri Satyendra Kumar Singh, Sahayak Sadhan Sevi, Bihar Siksha Priyojana, Sitamarhi. 6. Sri Satya Prakash Gupta, Apar Zial Karya Samanayoak, Bihar Siksha Priyojana, Sitamarhi. 7. Sri Shailendra Kumar, Regional Education Officer, Riga, Sitamarhi. 8. Sri Sachindra Kumar, Zila Siksha Adhikshak, Sitamarhi. 9. Director, National Employment Scheme, Sitamarhi. 10. Mukhiya, Gram Panchayt Raj, Bela Machhapakauni, Block- Parihar, Dist-Sitamarhi. 11. Panchayt Secretary, Gram Panchayt Raj, Bela Machhapakauni, Block-Parihar, Dist-Sitamarhi. 12. The New Dist Teacher Appellate Tribunal Sitamarhi. ----------- 3 24.11.2010 The challenge of the petitioners in all these writ applications is to a common order of the Appellate Authority dated 12.8.2009, as contained in Annexure-9, by which their appointments have been ordered to be cancelled. The challenge is precisely on the ground that before directing to cancel of their appointments the 3 petitioners were neither noticed nor were given any opportunity to be heard and the order has been passed behind their back by the Appellate Authority. The impugned order has been placed before this Court. Learned counsels for the State appearing in all these writ applications have fairly accepted that in passing the impugned order audi altrem partem rule has been violated by the appellate authority. It is accepted that the order entailed civil consequences, in as much as petitioner stand terminated from the service without being heard in the matter. In the circumstances, on the ground due to reasons of admitted violation of “Audi Alteram Partem” rule, the order of the appellate authority is set aside. The Petitioners are directed to appear before the Appellate Authority within four weeks from today, Upon their appearance, the Appellate Authority shall fix up a firm date, not beyond one month, for fresh hearing in the matter, which shall be communicated to the petitioners then and their. The Appellate Authority shall also call for the records in respect of the process of appointment by which the petitioners were appointed. On the date fixed, in pursuance of the petitioner who appear, the records shall be examined by the Appellate Authority and Appellate Authority shall come to a conclusion with respect to validity of the process of appointment by the concerned employment agency. If after such examination 4 of records, it comes to the conclusion that the process was valid, it shall pass necessary order for payment of salary of the petitioners, however, in case the Appellate Authority finds the process vitiated, affecting the validity of the appointment of the petitioners, it shall fix up a date for hearing the petitioners and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. The entire process must be completed by the appellate authority within two months from the date of appearance of the petitioners. If any of the petitioners does not appear before the Appellate Authority and/or does not participate in the hearing, it will be presumed that the concerned petitioner has no grievance against the impugned order, in that situation his/her appointment shall be cancelled. In case the petitioners do not appear within one month before the Appellate Authority, the impugned order as contained in Annexure-9 shall stands revived. The writ applications are disposed of with the above observations and directions. Prakash ( J.N. Singh, J)