IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13152 of 2008 Rekha Kumari, aged about 32 years, wife of Danesh Singh, resident of village Baruna, P.O. Chipura Khurd, P.S. Gauri Chak, District- Patna ……….. Petitioner Versus 1.The State Of Bihar 2.The District Magistrate, Patna 3.The District Superintendent of Education, Patna 4.The Block Development Officer, Parsa, District- Patna 5.Gram Panchayat Chiupura Sampatchak through its Mukhiya Chipura Khurd, P.S. Gauri Chak, District- Patna. …………… Respondents ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner : Mr.Rajendra Pd.Singh,Sr.Adv. For the State : Mr.Din Bandhu Singh, G.P.IX For the Intervenor : Mr.Lalan Kumar Singh, Adv. ---------------------------------- 2. 18/10/2011 An intervention application has been filed as I.A.No.8251 of 2010 by one Nita Kumari in which it is stated that she had challenged the appointment of the petitioner in this Court through C.W.J.C.No.15310 of 2006. In that writ application, petitioner had intervened and after hearing, the matter has been remitted back to the Appellate Authority for consideration on merits and for decision in accordance with law. Pursuant to the orders of this Court, matter is under consideration by the Appellate Authority. In the circumstances, this writ application is disposed of with liberty to 2 the petitioner to appear before the Appellate Authority in the pending appeal of said Nita Kumari and take her defence. The Appellate Authority is further directed to hear the parties, examine original records and take final decision in accordance with law. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the present impugned order in this writ application has been passed by the Collector of Patna Division, who, after 2006 Rules came into force, has no jurisdiction to pass orders in the matters of Panchayat Teachers. He further submits that before passing the said order, the District Magistrate had not issued any notice to the petitioner and had not given her any opportunity to be heard. There is nothing on record to controvert this submission of learned senior counsel for the petitioner. This writ application was filed on 1.9.2008 with service of two copies of the same in the office of the learned Advocate General. However, till today, no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. 3 In the circumstances, giving benefit of doubt to the petitioner, impugned order of the Collector is quashed. However, since the allegation is of forgery and interpolation in the mark sheet by the petitioner for obtaining appointment, quashing of the impugned order shall not benefit the petitioner. The matter should be considered and decided by the Appellate Authority on its own merits and on the basis of records. Pradeep/ ( J. N. Singh,J.)