IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5290 of 2008 MD.HARUN RASHID, S/O ABDUL GAFFUR, R/O VILLAGE-LATAUNA NORTH, P.S.-TRIVENIGANJ, DISTRICT-SUPAUL. ……………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SUPAUL. 3. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION- CUM-DISTRICT PROGRAMME COORDINATOR, BIHAR EDUCATION PROJECT, SUPAUL. 4. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TRIVENIGANJ, SUPAUL. 5. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, TRIVENIGANJ, SUPAUL. 6. THE HEAD MASTER, RAMJI DASS MIDDLE SCHOOL, TRIVENIGANJ, SUPAUL. 7. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, LATAUNA NORTH, P.S.-TRIVENIGANJ, DISTRICT-SUPAUL. 8. THE MUKHIYA-CUM-CHAIRMAN, SUKH SUBIDHA SAMITI, LATAUNA NORTH, TRIEVENIGANJ, DISTRICT-SUPAUL. 9. LAL MOHAMMAD, S/O MD.TASLIM, R/O ADARSH MOHALLA-LATAUNA NORTH, P.S.-TRIVENIGANJ, DISTRICT-SUPAUL. ………………RESPONDENTS. with CWJC No.12029 of 2009 MD.HARUN RASHID, S/O ABDUL GAFFUR, R/O VILLAGE-LATAUNA NORTH, P.S.-TRIVENIGANJ, DISTRICT-SUPAUL. ……………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SUPAUL. 3. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION- CUM-DISTRICT PROGRAMME COORDINATOR, BIHAR EDUCATION PROJECT, SUPAUL. 4. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TRIVENIGANJ, SUPAUL. 5. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, TRIVENIGANJ, SUPAUL-CUM-BLOCK PROGRAMME COORDINATOR, SARVA SHIKSHA ABHIYAN. 6. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, TRIBENIGANJ, SUPAUL. 7. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, LATAUNA NORTH, P.S.-TRIVENIGANJ, DISTRICT-SUPAUL. 2 8. THE MUKHIYA-CUM-CHAIRMAN, SUKH SUBIDHA SAMITI, LATAUNA NORTH, TRIEVENIGANJ, DISTRICT-SUPAUL. 9. THE HEADMASTER, RAMJI DAS MIDDLE SCHOOL, TRIBENIGANJ, SUPAUL. 10. LAL MOHAMMAD, S/O MD.TASLIM, R/O ADARSH MOHALLA-LATAUNA NORTH, P.S.-TRIVENIGANJ, DISTRICT-SUPAUL. ………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2 19.07.2011 The two cases have been filed by the same petitioner. In the first case, the petitioner has challenged an order dated 04.02.2008, as contained in Annexure-8, passed by the District Magistrate, Supaul, by which the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. In the second case, subsequent orders of the District Magistrate, Supual dated 17.03.2008, as contained in Annexure- 6, and the order of the B.D.O. dated 13.05.2009, as contained in Annexure-7, appointing the private respondent as Panchayat Teacher are under challenge. These orders have been passed after the statutory Appellate Authority has been constituted for consideration of such grievances in respect of employment of Panchayat Teachers. In the circumstances, these writ applications are disposed of with liberty 3 to the petitioner to approach the concerned Appellate Authority within four weeks from today. If he does so, the Appellate Authority shall issue notice to the parties, if necessary, shall call for the original records and shall decide the matter in accordance with law, preferably within the time frame fixed in the Rules for disposal of such matters. For decision on merits the orders of the Collector and the B.D.O. shall not come in the way of the Appellate Authority and shall not be relied upon by it. Arvind/ ( J.N. Singh, J.)