IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11751 of 2008 SANJU KUMARI, D/O SRI JYOTISH CHANDRA SAH, R/O VILLAGE-HARIPUR PANCHAYAT-PATHARA, BLOCK- BARAHAT, P.S.-BARAHAT, DISTRICT-BANKA. ……………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE COMMISSIONER, BHAGALPUR, DISTRICT- BHAGALPUR. 5. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, BHAGALPUR, DISTRICT- BHAGALPUR. 6. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BANKA, DISTRICT-BANKA. 7. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, BANKA, DISTRICT-BANKA. 8. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, BARAHAT, DISTRICT-BANKA 9. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, BARAHAT, DISTRICT-BANKA. 10. THE GRAM PANCHAYAT PATHARA THROUGH ITS MUKHIYA WITHIN BLOCK BARAHAT, DISTRICT- BANKA. 11. THE MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT, PATHARA, BLOCK-BARAHAT, DISTRICT-BANKA. 12. THE GRAM PANCHAYAT SECRETARY PATHARA, BLOCK-BARAHAT, DISTRICT-BANKA. 13. THE HEADMASTER, PRIMARY SCHOOL HARIPUR, BLOCK-BARAHAT, DISTRICT-BANKA. …………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 3 17.10.2011 Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Block Development Officer dated 16.06.2008, as contained in Annexure- 10, by which her services as Panchayat Teacher have been terminated on the ground that the residential certificate submitted by her has been found as wrong on the basis 2 of spot inquiry. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said inquiry was held behind the back of the petitioner and the Block Development Officer also did not issue any notice giving any opportunity to the petitioner to appear and take her defence before passing the impugned order. He also submits that as long as the residential certificate of the competent authority is there, it has to be treated as valid till it is cancelled or withdrawn. Hence, it was not open to the Block Development Officer to go behind the same and get a separate inquiry held on the spot and find that that certificate is wrong. The dispute appears to be in relation to the actual resident of the petitioner which is a dispute of fact. In the circumstances, this Court considers it appropriate that the petitioner should file a representation before the statutory Appellate Authority constituted under the Rules, in terms of 2008 amendment, within four weeks from today. If she does so, the Appellate 3 Authority shall get independent inquiry held, shall call for the records also, if necessary, shall issue notice to the concerned parties and shall decide the matter independently on merits. For this purpose, the Appellate Authority shall not feel any impediment from the impugned order of the Block Development Officer who was exercising power of Appellate Authority prior to the amendment in the Rules. Final decision in the matter must be taken by the Appellate Authority on merits within three months from the date of filing of the representation by the petitioner. Arvind/ ( J.N. Singh, J.)