IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11620 of 2009 Afreen Sultana, Daughter of Md. Mazhar Hussain, Resident of Mohalla Marar Bhage, Village + Post Office Dehti, Police Station Palasi, District Araria……………………………………………………………………….………..Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Araria. 5. The Block Teachers Employment Committee, Palasi, District Araria through its Secretary. 6. The Secretary, Block Teachers Employment Committee, Palasi, District Araria. 7. The Block Education Extension Officer, Palasi, District Araria. 8. The Chairman, Block Teachers Employment Committee, Palasi, District Araria…………………………………..Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh, Sr. Advocate with M/s Brisketu Sharan Pandey & Gyan Shankar, Advocates For the State: Assistant Counsel to G.P.No.14. 3 09.11.2010 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. From the record it appears that earlier appointment of 33 Panchayat Teachers was cancelled. Subsequently, recounselling was held of the candidates in which petitioner also appeared. However, in the recounselling only services of 24 persons were restored leaving out petitioner and some others. Petitioner 2 filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority heard the matter where District Superintendent of Education submitted his report that after services of 24 persons were restored, a pressure was built up by the appointing agency due to which services of petitioner and others could not be restored and resultant vacancy was merged with the vacancy for appointment to be held in second phase in 2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was third candidate in the panel of Urdu teachers in the category of extremely backward class and first two candidates had already been appointed and only appointment of the petitioner was cancelled. He submitted that appointment of the petitioner was valid and genuine and her services have to be restored as was done in the case of the said 24 candidates. But orders were not issued and posts in question were merged with the vacancies to be filled in second phase. He submits that since the petitioner had filed complaint, in all propriety, a post should have been kept vacant for the petitioner, and if her appointment was valid and genuine, she was 3 entitled to be reinstated and restored in service, and the authorities were not legally justified in merging her post with the vacancies for appointment to be held in second phase during the pendency of her appeal before the Appellate Authority. From the finding of the Appellate Authority it appears that no finding has been given by it with regard to validity of appointment of the petitioner. Since she had filed the appeal it was statutory duty of the Appellate Authority to examine it and give a clear cut finding with regard to genuineness and correctness of her appointment. If the appointment of the petitioner was found to be valid and legal, the consequential order had to follow and the petitioner was entitled to be restored to her post. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the posts of Panchayat Teachers are still lying vacant of the category in the Panchayat. From the order of the Appellate Authority it also appears that though it has observed that no clear report has been submitted as to why petitioner was kept out of 4 employment, it has rejected the appeal of the petitioner only on the ground that resultant vacancies have now been included with the vacancies of 2008 to be filled up in the second phase. Apparently, the Appellate Authority has failed to exercise its jurisdiction and decide the issue raised by the petitioner in her appeal. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Appellate Authority to decide the validity of appointment of petitioner in clear terms. In case the finding of the Appellate Authority is in favour of the petitioner, the Appellate Authority shall pass consequential orders for her appointment or reinstatement of her services. In such a situation, the Appellate Authority shall pass appropriate orders in respect of consequential reliefs also. This application is allowed to the extent, as indicated above. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)