IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2576 of 2010 NEETU KUMARI W/O SRI RAMASHISH PRASAD SINGH R/O VILL.- KHIJARSARAI, P.S. KHIJARSARAI, DISTT.- GAYA. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY, DEPTT. OF EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GAYA 4. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, GAYA 5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, KHIJARSARAI, DISTT.- GAYA 6. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, KHIJARSARAI, DISTT.- GAYA 7. MUKHIA GRAM PANCHAYAT, KHIJARSARAI, DISTT.- GAYA 8. PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT KHIJARSARAI, DISTT.- GAYA 9. THE MEMBER, DISTRICT TEACHER EMPLOYMENT APPELLATE AUTHORITY, GAYA. ----------- 02 19.11.2010 The petitioner was selected and duly appointed as Shiksha Mitra. Soon after appointment of petitioner, it appears that there were complaints. The Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Gaya directed the Block Development Officer to enquire into the matter. It appears that the Block Development Officer conducted an ex parte enquiry and declared the appointment of petitioner as wrong and illegal. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was neither heard in the matter nor any notice was issued to the petitioner. Being aggrieved by this order, which had not only the effect of terminating the petitioner’s appointment but had the effect of depriving the petitioner from being reappointed and then being absorbed as Panchayat Teacher, he filed a writ petition before this Court. The writ petition was disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to move the District Teacher - 2 - Employment Appellate Authority, which had since been constituted. Petitioner, accordingly, moved the Appellate Tribunal, which registered the case as Case No.725 of 2009 and which has been dismissed by order dated 22.01.2010. The order of the Appellate Tribunal is Anneuxre-1. Having perused the order of the Tribunal, I find that the Tribunal though has passed a long order but there is absolutely no consideration as to why and how petitioner’s appointment was illegal. The Tribunal merely has noted that the matter was enquired into by the Block Development Officer, who found the appointment to be illegal. In my view, unfortunately, the whole approach of the Tribunal was wrong. The Tribunal constituted to resolve the disputes. The very order of the Block Development Officer was under challenge. The Tribunal was bound to examine the matter and decide it afresh. The order of the Block Development Officer was apparently without jurisdiction inasmuch he decided the matter even without hearing the petitioner or without notice to the petitioner. This Court after perusing both the orders is unable to understand as to on what grounds petitioner’s appointment was held to be illegal. The consequence is the orders of the Block Development Officer and the Tribunal is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to consider afresh and pass appropriate orders. I may point out that if the Tribunal finds that there is no illegality in appointment of petitioner then petitioner would be entitled to be reinstated as a Panchayat Teacher to which the Shiksha Mitra who were working at the relevant - 3 - time were absorbed. It cannot be said that the post of Shiksha Mitra has been abolished. The petitioner has remediless if it is found that the petitioner was wrongly terminated. Petitioner must get the benefit of consequential relief as well. It is expected that the Tribunal will dispose of the matter after hearing all the necessary parties and examining the record within two months from the date of production of a copy of this order before the Tribunal. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)