IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3888 of 2008 1. ASHOK KUMAR, son of Anant Pandey, resident of village Siswa, P.O. Rampur Meena , P.S. Baruraj. 2. Kaushal Kishosre Bharti, son of late Raja Ram, resident of village Korigawa, P.O. Mahwal, P.S. Baruraj. 3. Sanjay Kumar Das, son of Jagdeo Das resident of village Korigawa, P.O. Mahwal, P.S. Baruraj. 4. Manoranjan Kumar, son of Kedar Sah, resident of village Korigawa, P.O. Mahwal, P./s. Baruraj. 5. Reena Kumari, wife of Kaushal Kishore Bharti, resident of village Korigawa, P.O. Mahwal, P.S. Baruraj. 6. Rakhi Kumari, wife of Amrendra Kumar, resident of village Korigawa, P.O. Rampur Meena, P.S. Baruraj. 7. Alok Kumar, son of baleshwar Prasad Ram, resident of village Chhipulia, PO-Chaurghatta, P.S. Baruraj. 8. Shailendra Kumar Neeraj son of Badri Mahto Neeraj resident of village Korigawa, P.O. Mahwal, P.s. Baruraj 9. Vinod Ram, son of Nagendra Ram, resident of village Korigawa, P.o. Mahwal, P.S. Baruraj District-Muzaffarpur. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, At & PO Muzaffarpur. 3. The District Supe. Of Education Muzaffarpur, At&PO Muzaffarpur. 4. The Panchayat Sewak cum Secretary, Gram Panchayt Raj Korigawa, P.O. Mahwal, P.s. Baruraj, Dist-Muzaffarpur. 5. The Mukhia Gram Panchayat Raj Korigawa, P.O. Mahwal, P.S. Baruraj Dist- Muzaffarpur. 6. Prabhat Kumar Dwivedi, son of Sant Kumar Dwivedi, resident of Village- Chaurghattta, PO-Deoria, P.S. Baruraj, Dist-Muzaffarpur. 7. Rajdeo Ram, son of Ramk Prasad Ram, resident of village Kuahi, PO-Deoria, P.s. Baruraj, Dist-Muzaffarpur. with CWJC No.15270 of 2009 1. SULEKHA KUMARI wife of Rajneesh Kumar. 2. Mannu Kumari, Wife of Brajesh Kumar. 3. Anita Kumari, wife of Rajeev Kumar All(1 to 3 residents of Village- Kuahi, 4. Renu Devi wife of Mohan Sah, resident of Village Korigawa. 5. Namuna Kumari, daughter of Kamal Kishsore Sahni. 6. Kumari Punam, daughter of jawahar lal Sahni. 2 7. Premwati Kumari, wife of Yugal Kishore Sahni All (5 to 7 residents of Village Chaurghattta.(1 to 7) Police Station Baruraj, Dist-Muzaffarpur. Versus 1 THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2 The Commissioner , Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur, At & PO Muzaffarpur. 3 The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, At & PO Muzaffarpur. 4 The District Supe. Of Education Muzaffarpur, At&PO Muzaffarpur. 5 The Panchayat Sewak cum Secretary, Gram Panchayt Raj Korigawa, P.O. Mahwal, P.S. Baruraj, Dist-Muzaffarpur. 6 The Mukhia Gram Panchayat Raj Korigawa, P.O. Mahwal, P.S. Baruraj Dist- Muzaffarpur. 7 Prabhat Kumar Dwivedi, son of Sant Kumar Dwivedi, resident of Village- Chaurghattta, PO-Deoria, P.S. Baruraj, Dist-Muzaffarpur. 8 Ramdeo Ram, son of Ramk Prasad Ram, resident of village Kuahi, PO-Deoria, P.s. Baruraj, Dist-Muzaffarpur. ----------- 5 26.11.2010 The first writ application has been filed by nine petitioners challenging the order of the District Magistrate Muzaffarpur, contained in Annexure-5 by which their appointment as Shiksha Mitra were cancelled. From Annexure-8 to the second writ application it appears that some of the teachers, who were removed, had moved the Appellate Authority constituted under amended Rule 18 of the 2006 Rules. However, the Appellate Authority, through its letter dated 19.8.2009, has communicated to the Deputy Development Commissioner that it had no authority to entertain the appeal against the order of the previous Appellate 3 Authority cum District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur. First of all, the District Magistrate was never appointed as Appellate Authority under the Rules. Secondly, the present Appellate Authority has been constituted in terms of the newly amended Rule 18 of the 2006 Rules. By insertion in the Rules a provision for creation of Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority so created, becomes a quasi Judicial Body under the law. In the circumstances, it can entertain any complaint or any matter or any complaint against the order of any Authority of the Government in accordance with the Rules and decide the same on merits subject to limitation and other conditions as may be laid down in the Rules or Government letters and circulars. Clearly, the Appellate Authority had the jurisdiction to entertain the appeal on merits. The order of the Appellate Authority, as contained in Annexure 8 with the second writ application, is therefore, set aside, and the matter is remitted back to the Appellate Authority to be considered 4 on merits without going into the question of limitation complying with Principles of Natural Justice, preferably within the time frame as fixed by Rules for decision of appeals. The petitioners of the first case are given liberty to file their separate appeal if they are so advised, which may be heard along with appeal of the petitioners of the second application. With the aforesaid observations and directions, both the writ applications are disposed of. Prakash ( J.N.Singh, J.)