IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10082 of 2008 LAXMI KUMARI, W/O SRI HIMANSHU KUMAR RANA, R/O VILLAGE-SANOKHAR, P.S.-SANOKHAR, DISTRICT-BHAGALPUR. ……………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, HUMAN RESURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, BHAGALPUR, DISTRICT- BHAGALPUR. 5. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KAHALGAON SUB-DIVISION, DISTRICT-BHAGALPUR. 6. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SANAHLA BLOCK, DISTRICT-BHAGALPUR. 7. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, SANAHLA BLOCK, DISTRICT-BHAGALPUR. 8. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, SILHAN-KHAJURIA PANCHAYAT, SANAHLA BLOCK, DISTRICT- BHAGALPUR. 9. THE MUKHIYA, SILHAN-KHAJURIA PANCHAYAT, SANAHLA BLOCK, DISTRICT-BHAGALPUR. ……………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 5 13.09.2011 Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the B.D.O. dated 18.04.2008, as contained in Annexure- 1, by which the B.D.O. has cancelled the entire selection process for appointment of Panchayat Teachers on the ground that no transparency was maintained in the process and the appointments were not made in accordance with the Rules. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant Sanjiv Kumar was not a resident of the Panchayat rather he was not even a resident of the State. Still his complaint was 2 entertained by the S.D.O. who sent some communication to the B.D.O., on the basis of which the B.D.O. has passed the impugned order. He also submits that before cancelling the entire selection process, the B.D.O. has not issued any notice to the petitioner and has not given him any opportunity to be heard. He also submits that when the person above in the panel did not appear for appointment, this petitioner was rightly appointed from the panel on the seat which was reserved for the B.C. category. Counter affidavit has been filed by respondent nos.5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the inquiry was made and it was found that the appointment was not in accordance with law and hence the appointments were cancelled. However, it is not denied in the counter affidavit that before the order was passed by the B.D.O. no notice was issued to the petitioner. On the other had, the stand in the counter affidavit is that no notice was required to be issued to the petitioner as after examining the entire records and upon inquiry the B.D.O. had passed orders. Since by the impugned order the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled it was appropriate for the B.D.O. to issue notice to the 3 petitioner giving him an opportunity to establish the validity of her appointment. Be that as it may, since the entire selection process was found by the B.D.O. as vitiated on account of non-compliance of the procedure prescribed in the Rules, this Court feels that, to meet the challenge to the impugned order, the entire records is required to be perused. This Court is of the opinion that it is more convenient for the Appellate Authority constituted under the Rules to look to the original records, hear the parties and then pass a final order on merits with regard to validity and correctness of the procedure adopted and appointments made. In the circumstances, petitioner is granted liberty to file a representation before the statutory Appellate Authority within four weeks from today. If she does so, the Appellate Authority shall call for the original records from the concerned Panchayat evidencing the entire selection process, shall issue notice to the concerned parties giving them opportunity to be heard and shall pass final orders, after perusing the records, in respect of validity or otherwise of selection process and appointments made. It goes without saying that, if the 4 Appellate Authority finds appointment of any Panchayat Teachers as not in accordance with law he shall be given opportunity to be heard before coming to a decision on merits in the matter. The Appellate Authority shall treat the impugned order of the B.D.O. dated 18.04.2008 as quashed by this Court and shall not considered it as an impediment in coming to a decision on merits. The decision in this regard must be taken by the Appellate Authority within two months from the date of filing of the representation by the petitioner. Till fresh decision is taken by the Appellate Authority, the interim order passed by this Court in this writ application on 07.12.2010 shall continue. Arvind/ ( J.N. Singh, J.)