IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.6974 of 2008 Anjum Roohi, D/O Md.Yusuf, Vill.- Bhimpur, P.S. Madhepur, District- Madhubani. ……….. Petitioner Versus 1.The State Of Bihar 2.The Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3.The Director, Panchayati Raj, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 4.The District Magistrate, Madhubani 5.The District Superintendent of Education, Madhubani 6.The Sub-Divisional Officer, Lakhanaur, Madhubani 7.The Block Development Officer, Lakhanaur, Madhubani 8.The Block Education Extension Officer, Lakhanaur, Madhubani 9.The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Maivi, Lakhanaur, Madhubani 10.The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Maivi, Lakhanaur, Madhubani. …………. Respondents ---------------------------------- 2. 01/08/2011 Grievance of the petitioner is that as she was a Urdu knowing handicapped female candidate, she was eligible for appointment as Panchayat Teacher under the category, which was done. However, subsequently, a report was submitted by the Block Education Extension Officer against her on the ground that the merit list of handicapped candidates of all the four Panchayats were prepared separately and consolidated list was not prepared, on account of which some candidates having higher marks could not be selected. Learned counsel for the petitioner 2 submits that even if consolidated list would have been prepared, since the petitioner was fulfilling all the three criteria, her appointment could not have been held illegal. However, the Block Development Officer by the impugned order dated 1.3.2008, as contained in Annexure-24, has cancelled her appointment as Panchayat Teacher with one sentence observation that the same was not in accordance with the departmental instructions. The impugned order of the Block Development Officer is apparently a non- speaking order and therefore, the same was fit to be quashed and the matter was fit to be remitted back to him for passing fresh speaking order. However, after passing of the said order, powers of the Block Development Officer as an Appellate Authority has been withdrawn and a statutory Appellate Authority has been constituted by 2008 amendment in the Rules. In the circumstances, petitioner is granted liberty to move the statutory Appellate Authority within four weeks from today. If she does so, the Appellate Authority shall call for the original records, issue notice to the concerned parties giving them opportunity to be 3 heard and decide the matter on merits without going into the question of limitation, positively within a period of two months from the date of filing of appeal by the petitioner. Petitioner may also raise the claim for payment of her salary of the period she has already worked, which shall also be considered by the Appellate Authority. For the purpose of consideration of the matters on merits by the Appellate Authority, the impugned order of the Block Development Officer, as contained in Annexure-24, and consequential order passed by the Mukhiya, as contained in Annexure-25, shall be treated as quashed by this Court. However, as a result of the same, petitioner shall not be entitled to draw any salary till final orders are passed by the Appellate Authority. Pradeep/ ( J. N. Singh,J.)