IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9149 of 2007 KAUSHAL KISHORE PATHAK, son of Gayanand Pathak Village Chainpur, P.O. & P.S Balua Bazar P.S. Bhimpur, District Supaul… ….Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, 2. Collector, Supaul, 3. Block Development Officer, Chhatapur Block, District Supaul, 4. District Superintendent of Education, Supaul, 5. Block Education Extension Officer, Chhatapur Block, District Supaul, 6. Area Education Extension Officer, Chhatapur Block District Supaul, 7. Sattan Gupta, Panchayat Sachiv, Thuthi Panchayat Chhatapur Block, District Supaul, 8. Manoj Kumar Rai, Mukhiya, Thuthi Panchayat Chhatapur Block, District Supaul, 9. Rajendra Das son of Bahuran Das, Village Chainpur, P.S. Bhimpur P.O. & Cia Balua Bazar DistrictSupaul… …….Respondents. For the Petitioner : Mr. Dhirendra Kr. Jha-2, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Shashi Shekhar Pd. Sinha, AC to GP-XVII ………….. 2 07.03.2011 After some argument, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that during the pendency of this writ application appellate tribunal has been constituted under Rule 18 of the Bihar Panchayat Parambhik Shikshak (Niyojan Avam Seva Sart) Niyamavali, 2006 (as amended by Amendmant Rules, 2008). Therefore, there would be an alternative remedy to the petitioner for filing an appeal before it. Thus, a prayer has been made for withdrawal of 2 this writ application for filing an appeal before the appellate tribunal. It is also pointed out by the petitioner that though application was preferred under Rule 18 before the concerned Block Development Officer who was on that point of time, under Rule 18 of 2006, was a competent authority to decide the complaint with regard to the dispute regarding employment as Panchayat Teacher, but no order could be passed by the Block Development Officer concerned. Learned counsel appearing for the State admits that no decision could be taken by the Block Development Officer. In the meantime, rules have been amended in the year 2008 and now appellate tribunal has been constituted. Accordingly this writ application is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty granted to the petitioner. If the petitioner files proper application before the appellate tribunal within eight weeks, then the appellate tribunal should consider the same on its own merit and in accordance with law and dispose of the same within the time prescribed under the rules. Petitioner would be at liberty to raise all the grounds which have 3 been raised in this writ application and also various decisions of this Court referred by him. It is made clear that this Court has not formed any opinion with regard to the merit of the case of the petitioner. Sanjay-II ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)