IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10372 of 2008 SHANTA RANI, D/O SRI SURYA NARAYAN GUPTA, R/O VILLAGE-UDAKISHUNGANJ, P.S.-UDAKISHUNGANJ, DISTRICT-MADHEPURA. …………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MADHEPURA. 5. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOSHI DIVISION, SAHARSA. 6. THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, MADHEPURA. 7. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, MADHEPURA. 8. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, BLOCK UDAKISHUNGANJ, DISTRICT-MADHEPURA. 9. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, BLOCK UDAKISHUNGANJ, DISTRICT-MADHEPURA. 10. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, KISHUNGANJ PANCHAYAT BLOCK UDAKISHUNGANJ, DISTRICT- MADHEPURA. 11. THE MUKHIYA, KISHUNGANJ PANCHAYAT BLOCK UDAKISHUNGANJ, DISTRICT-MADHEPURA. ……………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2 26.09.2011 Through I.A. No.6686 of 2011 petitioner has brought on record an order passed by the Appellate Authority, Madhepura dated 06.03.2010 in Appeal No.112 of 2009 by which the Appellate Authority has disposed of the appeal noticing that the appointment of the petitioner and others has already been cancelled earlier. When the matter was being heard by the Appellate Authority it was open to the 2 Appellate Authority to go into the legality of the order passed by the Panchayat cancelling the appointment of the petitioner and others. In the process it was expected from the Appellate Authority to issue notice to the petitioner and others, giving them opportunity to be heard in the matter in defence of their appointment and then come to a conclusion on merits with regard to validity and legality of their appointments and the validity of the procedure adopted. This Appellate Authority has not done and only on the basis of a report from the Panchayat that their appointments already stands cancelled, the appeal has been disposed of. The Appellate Authority has also noticed that the Regional Deputy Director of Education had held an inquiry and on the basis of the same action has already been taken. The said report and the order of the Regional Deputy Director of Education is under challenge in this writ application on the ground that under the 2006 Rules, the Regional Deputy Director of Education has no authority to interfere in the matters of appointment and service conditions of 3 Panchayat Teachers and examine in respect of validity or otherwise of their appointments and pass orders for their termination. Learned counsel for the petitioner is correct. The Rules does not give any powers to the Regional Deputy Director of Education to hold an inquiry or pass orders in respect of the engagement or otherwise of the Panchayat Teachers. Hence, the Appellate Authority should not have relied upon the said report. Accordingly, the I.A. is allowed. Petitioner is given liberty to challenge the said order of the Appellate Authority. Further the order of the Appellate Authority is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Appellate Authority to consider the same on merits and decide the same afresh after complying with the Principles of Natural Justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the post earlier held by the petitioner is still vacant. Hence, the Appellate Authority shall be at liberty to pass any interim order, if it feels necessary. Further the appellate 4 Authority is directed to decide the matter positively within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Arvind/ ( J.N. Singh, J.)