IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7435 of 2009 Javed Akhtar Tabassum son of Md. Tajyab resident of village-Deoria Sera P.O. Deoria Kothi under Gram Panchayat- Deoria East, P.S. – Deoria Kothi, Block-Paroo Dist. – Muzaffarpur.......................Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur. 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Muzaffarpur. 5. The Block Development Officer, Paroo, Muzaffarpur. 6. The Block Education Extension Officer, Paroo, Muzaffarpur. 7. The Head-Master, Middle School, Deoria, Block - Paroo, District- Muzaffarpur.......................Respondents ----------- 3 16.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. In this writ application, petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.05.2009 passed by the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur as contained in Annexure-4 by which services of the petitioner as Panchayat Teacher have been found to be illegal and have been ordered to be terminated. The said order has been passed in respect of other teachers also. However, this writ application is confined to only present petitioner and the order is being passed by this Court in this case only. - 2 - The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that initially petitioner was appointed as Shiksha Mitra on contractual basis. After coming into force of the Bihar Panchayat Prarambhik Shikshak (Niyojan Avam Seva Sart) Niyamvali, 2006, petitioner’s services were converted as Panchayat Teacher. Subsequently, some complaint was received in respect of the teachers in the light of which enquiry was made in respect of many teachers and the Collector found services of the petitioner also as illegal. Therefore, the impugned order was issued. The ground for holing the appointment of the petitioner as illegal was that he was initially appointed as Urdu Shiksha Mitra in 2005 on the vacancy of 2003 which has remained unfilled. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that on the basis of the Rules, earlier the B.D.O. had appellate power which subsequently, by amendment, stood transferred to an authority, namely, District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority constituted in the district. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner ought to have moved the - 3 - appellate authority. Learned counsel for the State has also produced a press communiqué published in the newspaper dated 18.05.2010 of the Department of Human Resources Development issued under the signature of the Principal Secretary from which it appears that all the matters in connection with the employment of Shiksh Mitra and Panchayat Shikshak are to be taken up by the appellate authority. In that view of the matter, this writ application is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file a formal appeal before the concerned appellate authority within four weeks from today. If the appeal is filed, the appellate authority shall consider the matter and after hearing the parties, shall decide the same within the statutory period prescribed by the Rules for the purpose. Since the writ application of the petitioner was filed in this Court soon after issue of Anenxure-4 and has remained pending, the appellate authority is directed to consider his appeal on merits. It is also directed that the appellate authority shall not take into account the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate in respect of - 4 - the petitioner and shall come to its independent finding with regard to the merits of the claim of the petitioner without being swayed away by the order of the District Magistrate in any way. During pendency of the appeal, petitioner is given liberty to make a claim for the salary of the period he actually worked. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. B.T. (J. N. Singh, J.)