IN THE HIGH COUR T OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17946 of 2011 Jai Rani Devi, Daughter of Bishun Dayal Panjiar, Resident of Dhamaura, PS Subhadra, District West Champaran. ---- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Human Resources, New Secretariat, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Primary Education, New Secretariat, Bihar, Patna. 4. The District Superintendent of Education, West Champaran at Bettiah. 5. The Block Education Extension Officer, Anchal Gonaha-2, West Champaran at Bettiah. 6. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Domath, Gonaha, West Champaran at Bettiah. 7. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Domath, Gonaha, West Champaran at Bettiah. ----- Respondents. ----------- 2 15.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.C. to A.A.G. 9 for the respondents no. 1 to 5. The petitioner is aggrieved by the portion of the order contained in Memo No. 489 dated 24.6.2011 by the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, West Champaran in Dispute Case No. 424 of 2010 by which her appointment has been cancelled on the ground that the qualification possessed by her was not recognized for such appointment. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this case are noted hereinbelow. The petitioner was first appointed as Shiksha Mitra on 28.2.2003 and thereafter her appointment was renewed from time to time. On 1.7.2006 she automatically became a Panchayat Teacher as per the Panchayat Primary Education 2 (Employment and Service Condition) Rules, 2006. It appears that one Sheela Kumari preferred a complaint before the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, West Champaran which was numbered as Dispute Case No. 424 of 2010 pleading therein that her case was wrongly rejected and she ought to have been appointed as a Shiksha Mitra and subsequently as a Panchayat Teacher. By the impugned order the case of Sheela Kumari was dismissed but at the same time, the appointment of the petitioner was also cancelled on the ground that the qualification possessed by her was not recognized for such appointment. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, West Champaran was not empowered to consider the validity of the appointment of the petitioner since that was not the dispute before it. The dispute only related as to whether the said Sheela Kumari was wrongly denied employment. After holding that her case was not justified and dismissing her claim, the appellate authority ought not to have transgressed its jurisdiction by going into the validity of the appointment of the petitioner 3 which was not the matter before it in the said proceeding. He further submits that the rules prescribe that any complaint has to be made within a period of 30 days from such employment. In the present case that not having been done, the dispute case itself was not maintainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Alok Kumar & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. [2009 (2) PLJR 929] the relevant being at paragraph 10 as well as a decision in the case of Baldev Ray Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. [2010 (4) PLJR 233], the relevant being at paragraphs 4 to 6. This Court in the said two decisions has held that the application filed beyond the time prescribed for such filing is hit by limitation and thus not competent to proceed. This Court has also held that the appellate authority can only decide with regard to the claim before it by a party and could not proceed to decide a lis with regard to any other appointment of any other person. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case the appellate authority having transgressed its limits and jurisdiction, the said order cannot be sustained. Even on merits he has stated that 4 since the controversy is being raised on the basis of the letter of the District Magistrate, West Champaran as contained in letter no. 559 dated 28.4.2009 by which the certificate possessed by the petitioner has been declared to be unfit for such employment cannot be given effect to with retrospective effect as the appointment of the petitioner was of the year 2003. Learned counsel for the respondent State on the other hand has submitted that the dispute being with regard to the petitioner not possessing the requisites qualification was rightly decided by the appellate authority. He further submits that this is not a case of retrospective effect of de-recognition but it was only with regard to the fact that such degree was not competent to be considered for employment and in that view of the matter no interference was required in the order under challenge. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is inclined to accept the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. The two decisions relied upon by the learned counsel cover the case of the 5 petitioner also. In that view of the matter the order dated 24.6.2011 contained in Memo No. 489, passed by the District Employment Appellate Authority, West Champaran in Dispute Case No. 424 of 2010 is set aside. This Court would like to clarify at this point that the authorities always have the power to move afresh in case they find that any fraud or any other illegality is committed against the petitioner or any other person but the District Appellate Authority in the proceedings under consideration was certainly not competent to do the same. With the aforementioned observations, this writ petition stands allowed. Sanjay (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)