IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.2498 OF 2007 1.MEENU KUMARI, D/O SHRI BHAIRAV PRASAD SINGH, R/O VILLAGE SIMRA, P.O BARAIL, P.S & DISTRICT SUPAUL. 2.MANJU KUMARI, W/O SHRI BIRENDRA KUMAR VIMAL, R/O VILLAGE LAKHANI, P.O. TELHAR, P.S MAHISHI, DISTRICT SAHARSA. 3.KRITILATA D/O SHRI ASHOK KUMAR CHOUDHARY, R/O VILLAGE LAKHANI, P.O. TELHAR, P.S MAHISHI, DISTRICT SAHARSA. 4.DHANANJAY KUMAR SINGH, S/O SHRI UMESH PRASAD SINGH, R/O VILLAGE & P.O. NARIYAR, P.S. & DISTRICT SAHARSA. 5.DINESH KUMAR SINGH, S/O SHRI JAGARNATH SINGH, R/O VILLAGE LAHUAR, P.O. TELHAR, P.S MAHISHI, DISTRICT SAHARSA. 6.ROHIT KUMAR PASWAN, S/O SHRI JAGDISH PASWAN, R/O VILLAGE PASTWAR, P.O, KHIRHO BALUAHA, P.S. MAHISHI, DISTRICT SAHARSA. 7.MUKESH KUMAR YADAV, S/O SHRI KHUSILAL YADAV, R/O VILLAGE LAKHNI, P.O. TELHAR, P.S MAHISHI DISTRICT SAHARSA. 8.SUREDRA KUMAR SAH, S/O SHRI KAMAL SAH, R/O VILLAGE & P.O TELHAR, P.S MAHISHI, DISTRICT SAHARSA. 9.KARILAL RAJAK, S/O SHRI RAMDEO RAJAK, R/O VILLAGE BAKHRI, P.O. DHAMSAINA, P.S SAUR BAZAAR, DISTRICT SAHARSA. 10.BIKAS KUMAR, S/O SHRI KAMAL PRASAD SINGH, R/O VILLAGE LAHUAR, P.O. TELHAR, P.S. MAHISHI, DISTRICT SAHARSA. …………………PETITIONERS. VERSUS 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SAHARSA. 3.THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 800015. 4.THE DIRECTOR, EDUCATION, PATNA. 5.THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, EDUCATION, KOSHI DIVISION, SAHARSA. 6.THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, SAHARSA. 7.THE DISTRICT EDUCATION SUPERINTENDENT CUM DISTRICT PROGRAMME CO-ORDINATOR, SARVA SIKSHA ABHIYAN, SAHARSA. 8.THE SUB DIVISIONAL EDUCATION OFFICER, SAHARSA. 9.THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, MAHISHI BLOCK, SAHARSA. 2 10.THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENTION OFFICER, MAHISHI BLOCK, SAHARSA. 11.THE MUKHIYA, TELHAR PANCHAYAT, MAHISHI, SAHARSA. 12.LAL BAHADUR SINGH, S/O LATE BINDESHWARI SINGH, R/O VILLAGE LAHUAR, P.O. TELHAR, P.S. MAHISHI, DISTRICT SAHARSA. 13.PRABHAT KUMAR, S/O SRI DEVANAND SINGH, R/O VILLAGE TELHAR, P.S. MAHISHI, DISTRICT SAHARSA. 14.DINESH KUMAR, S/O SRI SURYA NARAYAN SAH, R/O VILLAGE RESHNA, P.O. PASTWAR, P.S. DHABAULI, DISTRICT MADHEPURA. 15.AMIT KUMAR ROY, S/O SRI BINDESHWARI ROY, R/O VILLAGE TELHAR, P.S. MAHISHI, DISTRICT SAHARSA. 16.SANJAY PASWAN, S/O SRI JANARDAN PASWAN, R/O VILLAGE PASTWAR, P.O. BALUAHA, P.S. MAHISHI, DISTRICT SAHARSA. 17.SARSWATI KUMARI, D/O SRI SURENDRA KHAN, R/O VILLAGE BANGAON, P.S.BANGAON, DISTRICT SAHARSA. 18.SANJU KUMARI, D/O SRI BUDHDEV PASWAN,R/O VILLAGE POKHAR BHINDA, P.O. TELHAR, P.S. MAHISHI, DISTRICT SAHARSA. 19.SANJU KUMARI, D/O NIRANJAN MISHRA, W/O RAMANAND, R/O VILLAGE TELHAR, P.S.MAHISHI, DISTRICT SAHARSA. 20.SAROJ KUMARI, D/O RADHE SHYAM CHAUDHARY, R/O VILLAGE AND P.O. TELHAR, P.S. MAHISHI, DISTRICT SAHARSA. ………………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 07/ 03.08.2011 Heard counsel for the parties. For the reasons mentioned in the I.A NO. 5896 of 2007 seeking impleadment of Lal Bahadur Singh, Prabhat Kumar, Dinesh Kumar, Amit Kumar Roy, Sanjay Paswan, Saraswati Kumari and Sanju Kumari and I.A No. 5928 of 2007, Sanju Kumari and Saroj Kumari are allowed and they are directed to be added as respondent nos. 12 to 20 to this writ 3 application. Let the office make necessary correction in the cage column of the writ application. The nature of dispute involved in this writ application as to whether the ten petitioners were rightly appointed on the post of Panchayat Shikshak and have been continuing in service on the strength of the status quo order passed by this Court on 11.04.2007, despite the order of their removal passed by the District Magistrate and District Superintendent of Education on 05.12.2006 and 20.12.2006 respectively would essentially require adjudication on fact especially when the petitioners were never given any notice and/or afforded an opportunity of hearing prior to passing of the impugned order of their termination. As a matter of fact, there is no individual order of termination of the service of the petitioners though all of them came to be appointed on the strength of separate appointment letter issued by the Appointing Authority. The matter has become further complicated, inasmuch as, the 4 aforementioned intervenors added as respondent nos. 12 to 20 in this writ application claim that after the cancellation of appointment of the petitioners, in view of the impugned order, they were selected and appointed on the resultant vacancies caused by removal of the petitioners. Their such claim, however, was not accepted by the District Teachers Appellate Authority when they had moved for payment of salary on the strength of their such appointment and joining, inasmuch as, their Appeal No. 7141 of 2009 was rejected by order dated 05.10.2010. Counsel for the intervenors respondent nos. 12 to 20 however, submits that a separate writ petition has been filed by them assailing the aforementioned order as with regard to payment of their salary. In the considered opinion of this Court, the appointment of the interveners and their continuance as also payment of their salary would squarely depend on the justification of the order of removal of the petitioners because they have come to be appointed on the vacancy caused by 5 termination of the services of the petitioners. In other words, if the termination of service of the petitioners is not justified, the appointment of the respondent-interveners cannot be upheld and would confer them no right to continue in service much less claim for salary. In such a situation, this court would give liberty to the petitioners to file their complaint before the District Teachers Appellate Authority within a period of one month by impleading all the intervenors as opposite parties to their complaint petition. The Authority shall decide the issue as with regard to validity of orders of appointment, continuation and termination of service of the petitioners vis a vis the intervenor-respondents on merit and would non suit the petitioners on the ground of limitation. The Authority in its such exercise may also call for the original records of the selection and appointment of the petitioners as also of the intervenor- respondents for recording its finding as to whether the norms of selection adopted in the case of petitioners vis a vis the 6 intervener-respondents were as per the rules prescribed by the State Government. The appellate Authority will make best of its endeavour to pass a final order after hearing all the parties including the petitioner and respondent nos. 12 to 20 within a period of six months from the date of filing of the complaint by the petitioners. In order to facilitate the early disposal of the complaint to be filed by the petitioners, this Court would direct the petitioners and/or as also the interveners and their representatives to appear before the District Teachers Appellate Authority, Saharsa on 5th of September, 2011 whereafter the Authority shall fix a date of hearing of the complaint filed by the petitioners. It is made clear that since this Court has remitted the matter back to the Appellate Authority, the order for maintaining status quo passed in this case by this Court on 11.04.2007 shall continue and the payment of salary to the petitioners and/or to the intervenors will also be made in accordance with the 7 findings and the conclusion arrived at by the Authority. In other words, if the Authority would find the termination of the service of the petitioners was justified they would not be entitled for payment of salary but if it is found that their order of termination was unjustified, obviously they will be entitled for payment of salary and in that event the intervenors will not be entitled for payment of salary. With the aforementioned observations and direction, this application is disposed of. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)