IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9114 of 2009 Poonam Kumari, aged about 25 years, W/O Shri Rakesh Kumar, Permanent Resident of Village Mallah Chak, P.O. Jahanabad, District Jahanabad at present Residing at Mohalla Karbigahiya (Saraswati Shiksha Niketan), P.S. Jakkanpur, P.O. – G.P.O., District Patna…………………………………………………………..…………….Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Jahanabad 4. The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Jahanabad. 5. The District Magistrate, Jahanabad. 6. The District Superintendent of Education, Jahanabad. 7. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Magadh Division, Gaya. 8. The Block Development Officer, Kako Block, District Jahanabad. 9. The Block Education Extension Officer, Kako Block, District Jahanabad. 10. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Purvi Kako, Block Kako, District Jahanabad 11. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Purvi Kako, Block Kako, District Jahanabad. 12. The Head Mistress Prathmik Vidyalaya, Auliyachak, Block Kako, District Jahanabad 13. District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Jahanabad through its Member………………………………………………………….Respondents. ----------- 11. 02.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. Petitioner has challenged in this writ application an order passed by the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Jehanabad dated 30.04.2009 by which appeal of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground 2 that the Block Development Officer had already passed an order on 16.06.2008 when he had the Authority under Rule 18 of the Bihar Panchayat Prarambhik Shikshak (Niyojan Avam Seva Sart) Niyamvali, 2006 to entertain complaints in the matter of appointment of Panchayat Teacher. Petitioner has also challenged the said order passed by the Block Development Officer dated 16.06.2008 on the ground that though the enquiry was held by the Block Development Officer on complaint of one Shiv Rajesh Kumar, a candidate of scheduled caste, against non- consideration of his case for appointment, the Block Development Officer has also looked into the records and cancelled appointment of the petitioner, who was appointed as Panchayat Teacher in the quota of most backward class. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no complaint before the Block Development Officer in respect of appointment of the petitioner and only on complaint of said Shiv Rajesh Kumar, a candidate of scheduled caste, the Block Development Officer has suo motu examined the validity of appointment of petitioner and without noticing her and without giving any 3 opportunity of hearing to her has cancelled her appointment. In the circumstances, petitioner moved the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Jehanabad which was created by Amendment Rules in 2008, to hear appeals in respect of grievances of employment of Panchayat teachers. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the order of the Block Development Officer was ex parte and in violation of Principles of Natural Justice, the Authority ought to have heard the matter on merit and decided the same. Learned counsel has also challenged the order of the Block Development Officer on facts. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no.8 in which the order of the Block Development Officer has been sought to be defended on the ground that the Block Development Officer has passed orders for cancellation of appointment of the petitioner after examining the records. In the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court feels it appropriate that the matter should be re-examined by the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority on 4 merits after hearing the parties and after calling for the original records and examining the same. Therefore, the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 30.04.2009, as contained in Annexure-1, is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Jehanabad to consider appeal of the petitioner afresh on merits, call for the original records, examine the same and pass a fresh order on merits in accordance with law. The matter must be heard and decided preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The interim order passed on 10.08.2009 in this writ application shall continue till fresh orders are passed by the Appellate Authority. The writ application is allowed to the extent indicated above. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)