IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5766 of 2009 PUSHPA KUMARI, D/O BALMIKI PRASAD SINGH, R/O VILLAGE-WALIPUR, P.S.-PIPARIA, DISTRICT- LAKHISARAI. …………………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 2. THE DIRECTOR PRIMARY EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, LAKHISARAI. 4. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, PIPARIA, LAKHISARAI. 5. THE MUKHIYA PANCHAYAT RAJ, GRAM PANCHAYAT WALIPUR, PIPARIA BLOCK, LAKHISARAI. 6. SHASHI KUMARI, W/O SUBODH KUMAR SHARMA, R/O VILLAGE-WALIPUR (SOUTH TOLA), P.S.- WALIPUR, DISTRICT-LAKHISARAI. ………………RESPONDENTS. With CWJC No.6914 of 2009 SHASHI KUMARI, W/O SUBODH KUMAR SHARMA, R/O VILLAGE-WALLIPUR, P.S.-PIPARIA, DISTRICT- LAKHISARAI. …………………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, LAKHISARAI. 3. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, LAKHISARAI. 4. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, PIPARIA BLOCK, DISTRICT-LAKHISARAI. 5. THE MUKHIYA, WALLIPUR GRAM PANCHAYAT, BLOCK PIPARIA, DISTRICT-LAKHISARAI. 6. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, WALLIPUR GRAM PANCHAYAT BLOCK-PIPARIA, DISTRICT-LAKHISARAI. …………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr.Banwari Sharma, Adv. and Mr.Mukesh Kumar No.2, Adv. For Resp. No. 6 : Mr.Rajendra Kumar Giri, Adv. and Mr.Kinkar Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr. Ram Sagar Singh, AC to GP-XIII. ----------- 7 16.11.2010 It appears that respondent no.6 had earlier filed complaints before the B.D.O. and 2 Collector alleging appointment of petitioner as illegal. Her complaint/ representation not having been disposed of she moved this Court through CWJC No.11038 of 2007. The said writ application was disposed of by a Bench of this Court by order dated 12.9.2008 (Annexure-8) with direction to the concerned respondent to decide her representation in accordance with law. The Court observed that it had not gone into the merits of the matter which shall remain open in its entirety for consideration in the discretion of respondent no.4 i.e. B.D.O. In view of the said order, the B.D.O. considered the case and has passed the impugned order dated 20.03.2009, as contained in Annexure-3, by which the appointment of the petitioner has been held illegal. The petitioner has challenged the said order inter alia on the ground that on the date when he had passed the order he had no authority in law to entertain such complaints. Learned counsel for respondent no.6 submits that since this Court had remitted the matter back to the B.D.O., who was respondent no.4 in the case, the B.D.O. had exercised jurisdiction. He also submits that the present 3 Appellate Authority, set up in terms of the newly inserted Rule 18 in the Rules by 2008 amendment, has no jurisdiction to entertain complaints in respect of appointments and related matters in respect of Shiksha Mitras. The amendments in the Rules were notified and were published in the Gazette on 25.09.2008. Apparently when this Court passed the order in the said earlier writ application on 12.09.2008, this amendment was not brought to the notice of the Court. Therefore, it can not be assumed that inspite of this amendment in the Rules, this Court had specifically authorized the B.D.O. to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders. In the circumstances, this Court has no hesitation to hold that even upon remand the B.D.O. could not entertain the complaint of respondent no.6 as after 25.9.2008 he was divested of all powers in the matter. The only option left to the B.D.O. was to refer the matter to the newly constituted Appellate Authority in terms of amended Rules 18 and to transmit all pending records to the said Appellate Authority. So far as powers of the Appellate 4 Authority to entertain complaints in the matters of Siksha Mitras are concerned it is useful to refer to a Government letter contained in memo no. 681 dated 14.5.2009 which has notified a decision of the Government that in the matters of employment of Siksha Mitras also all appeals and complaints shall be disposed of by the newly constituted Appellate Authority. In view of this Government letter, it is clear that the Appellate Authority has the power to entertain such pending complaints and appeals even in respect of Siksha Mitras appointed prior to Rules coming into force. In view of above legal position, the order of the B.D.O., as contained in Annexure- 3, is unsustainable in law and therefore, the same is quashed. The B.D.O., Pipariya, District Lakhisarai is directed to refer the matter to the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority constituted under the amended Rules 18 within two weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order with entire connected records for consideration by the Appellate Authority. On receipt of the records the Appellate Authority 5 shall notice all the concerned persons and after service of the same shall fix up a firm date and proceed with the matter even if one or the other party does not appear or does not cooperate in the proceeding and shall pass speaking orders within two months from the date of receipt of the records from the office of the B.D.O. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the merits of the claims of the rival parties. Till the fresh orders are passed by the Appellate Authority, the interim order passed by this Court in this case on 06.05.2009 shall continue. So far as second case is concerned, the same has been filed by respondent no.6. Her grievance is that inspite of the order passed by the B.D.O. in her favour, she has not been appointed. In view of the order passed earlier, this writ application is also disposed of. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)