IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10090 of 2009 Santosh Kumar, son of Sri Raj Kumar Bhagat, resident of Village Shreepur Bahadurpur, P.S. Ashok Paper Mill, District Darbhanga……………………………………………………..……..Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate, Darbhanga. 3. The District Appellate Tribunal under Bihar Panchayat Teachers (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules 2006, Kalptaru Bhawan, Allapatti, Darbhanga. 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Darbhanga. 5. The Block Development Officer, Bahadurpur Block, District Darbhanga 6. The Block Education Extension Officer, Bahadurpur Bloc, District Darbhanga. 7. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Kharajpur, Bahadurpur Block, P.S. Bahadurpur, District Darbhanga. 8. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Kharajpur, Bahadurpur Block, P.S. Bahadurpur, District Darbhanga. 9. Ruso Sen Gupta, son of late Gauri Prasad Sen Gupta, resident of Village Tarauni, P.O. Shubhankarpur, P.S. + District Darbhanga…………………………………..…………………Respondents ----------- 5 18.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the official respondents. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 7 and 8 is also present. However, no one appears for respondent no.9 although name of his counsel is printed in the cause list. Petitioner has challenged an order dated 10.07.2009 passed by the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, 2 Darbhanga contained in Memo No.802 dated 04.08.2009, as contained inAnnexure-6. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the appeal was registered on the complaint of respondent no.9, who had raised grievance in respect of non-consideration of his case for appointment in spite of having submitted application and all requisite documents for the same. The Appellate Authority did not find any merit in the complaint of respondent no.9 as it did not find any evidence of his having applied for appointment. Therefore, his complaint was dismissed by the impugned order. However, on the basis of some report of different officials, the Appellate Authority has cancelled appointment of the petitioner on the ground that he was selected for appointment under a disability quota on 28.11.2007 whereas certificate of disability issued by the Civil Surgeon-Cum- Chief Medical Officer and produced by him was dated 17.03.2008. He submits that petitioner was never noticed or given any opportunity to be heard in the matter. 3 From bare reading of the impugned order it is apparent that the Appellate Authority considered the complaint of respondent no.9 and dismissed the same but it has cancelled appointment of the petitioner only on the ground that disability certificate of the petitioner was of subsequent date than the date of his selection for appointment. Clearly, petitioner was not given any notice or any opportunity to be heard before the said order was passed by the Appellate Authority. In the circumstances, the impugned order of the Appellate Authority, as contained in Annexure-6, is quashed on the ground of being in violation of Principles of Natural Justice. The writ application is, accordingly, allowed. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)