IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10002 of 2010 MAYA KUMARI SUMAN, W/O KRISHNAMOHAN YADAV, R/O MOHALLA FORBESGANJ, WARD NO. 5 , P.S. FORBESGANJ, DISTRICT- ARARIA. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY CUM COMMISSIONER, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,GOVT. OF BIHAR,PATNA. 2. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, ARARIA, DISTRICT-ARARIA. 4. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, BLOCK FORBESGANJ, DISTRICT- ARARIA. 5. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, BLOCK FORBESGANJ, DISTRICT- ARARIA. 6. THE MEMBER DISTRICT TEACHER EMPLOYMENT APPELLATE AUTHORITY, ARARIA. 7. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ KIRKICHIYA, BLOCK FORBESGANJ, DISTRICT- ARARIA. 8. THE MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ KIRKICHIYA, BLOCK FORBESGANJ, DISTRICT- ARARIA. ----------- For the Petitioner :Mr. Rajeev Kr. Singh, Adv. Mr. Nawal Kishore Singh, Adv. Mr. Alok Kumar Singh, Adv. For the State : AC to SC-2. ------------- 02 30.07.2010 By this writ application, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority, Araria in Case No.87 of 2009, being order dated 08.03.2010 (Annexure-1). By this order, the Tribunal has held the removal of one Smt. Archana Srivastva, who has appealed to the Tribunal to be wrong and invalid and directed her reinstatement. While doing so, the Tribunal examined the records and gave a finding that petitioner, Maya Kumari Suman had been wrongly appointed. The petitioner is aggrieved by this later portion of the - 2 - order. Petitioner asserts that in these proceedings in which petitioner’s appointment was held to be invalid and she was asked to be removed, she was not made a party nor noticed nor heard and, as such, the order was passed behind her back. Petitioner further submits that the order is full of error of record that would not have given an opportunity to the petitioner to explain the situation. Having considered the matter, in my view, the order in respect of Smt. Smt. Archana Srivastva is partly correct, inasmuch as, the Tribunal rightly held that the D.D.C. had no authority to remove the said Smt. Archana Srivastva and that too without notice, but the Tribunal erred in saying that efforts must be made to reemploy her. Once the Tribunal held that her removal was bad, the automatic consequence would be that Archana Srivastava had to be reinstated immediately without any delay. Whoever was employed in the vacancy caused by her wrongful removal would then have to be noticed and her services terminated because her employment contingent upon the validity of removal of Smt. Archana Srivastva. Now, coming to the question of petitioner, she states that she was duly recruited and in support thereof she annexed the appointment letter issued by the Mukhiya and the Panchayat Secretary. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the fact as recorded in the impugned order that she was appointed by - 3 - the Block Education Extension Officer on his own as against 15 posts is totally wrong. Be that as it may, from the order itself it is clear that the petitioner was not heard in the matter. The factual position as recorded by the Tribunal is not supported by the appointment letter nor is the finding of the Tribunal correct that petitioner had already been removed, whereas the fact is that the petitioner was removed but reinstated. In my view, in so far as the case of petitioner is concerned, the same requires reconsideration by the Tribunal. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order to the extent it deals with the validity or otherwise of the appointment of the petitioner and remand the matter to the Tribunal. The Tribunal would within one month decide the matter after calling the records and hearing the parties. In case, the Tribunal changes its order with respect to the petitioner and holds that her appointment was valid in that case Tribunal would be required to pass necessary orders for her immediate reinstatement after hearing and removing any person who was placed in petitioner’s vacancy. Till final orders of the Tribunal in so far as petitioner is concerned, status quo shall be maintained. With these observations and directions, the writ application is disposed of. Trivedi (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)