IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9064 of 2009 PRATIBHA KUMARI . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 5. 26/11/2010 Petitioner has challenged the order of the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, East Champaran dated 9.4.2009, as contained in Annexure-2. Ground of challenge to the said order is precisely that the petitioner has neither been noticed nor has been given opportunity to be heard before the order was passed determining the persons who were to be appointed as Panchayat Teachers which included the complainant also but excluded the petitioner. Her grievance is that by this process, appointment of the petitioner stands held illegal and liable to be cancelled. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that respondent no.12 had moved this Court earlier through C.W.J.C.No.14580 of 2008 raising her grievance with regard to non-consideration of her case for appointment as Panchayat Teacher. In the said writ application, she had added the present petitioner as respondent no.11. However, 2 later on, she withdrew the said writ application with liberty to avail alternative remedy, which was allowed by order dated 17.3.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said writ petitioner, who is respondent no.12 here, had filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority earlier and while the appeal was pending, she had moved this Court in writ jurisdiction. After her appeal before the Appellate Authority was concluded and orders were reserved, she withdrew her writ application before this Court. Merely after one month, order of the Appellate Authority was passed in her favour. He points out that though respondent no.12 had added the present petitioner as respondent no.11, she did not make the present petitioner as party in her appeal before the Appellate Authority and therefore, neither the petitioner was noticed nor was heard before the impugned order was passed by the Appellate Authority. Notices were issued to respondent nos.10, 11 and 12. Respondent No.12, the main contesting party, has also appeared through her learned counsel, whose name appears in 3 the cause list. However, on repeated calls, no one is present on her behalf to assist the Court. Learned counsel for the State though filed counter affidavit, fairly accepts that the order of the Appellate Authority does not show that it was passed in compliance with the principles of natural justice. In view of this admitted position, order of the Appellate Authority is held to be bad as being in violation of principles of natural justice. The same is accordingly quashed. If respondent no.12 moves the Appellate Authority afresh for consideration of her appeal, the Appellate Authority shall be obliged to issue notice to the petitioner and afford her opportunity to be heard and then shall proceed in the matter afresh. The writ application is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions. Pradeep/ ( J. N. Singh,J.)