IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8635 of 2007 Geeta Devi, wife of late Sachidanand Prasad, resident of village Khangal, P.O. + P.S. Arwal, District Jehanabad (Now Arwal) … Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Director Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Jehanabad, District Jehanabad 5. The District Superintendent of Education, Arwal, District Arwal 6. Sri Laxmi Raman Thakur, Block Education Extension Officer cum Inquiry Officer, Kurtha (South) District Arwal 7. The Headmaster, Govt. Primary School Madhaila Arwal, District Arwal … Respondents ---------------------------------- 2. 29.9.2011 Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 4.1.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Magadh Division in Appeal No. 28/2006 arising out of an order dated 29.7.2004 terminating his service on the post of teacher in a Govt. Primary School. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the appellate order passed by the Commissioner, Magadh Division, is unsustainable on the face of record, inasmuch as he has failed to analyze the circumstances in which the appeal was filed by the petitioner after expiry of period of limitation. In this context he would explain that when the petitioner in fact had filed the appeal initially before the Commissioner cum Secretary of Human Resources Development Department due to lack of his knowledge of the competent appellate authority and/or the compelling circumstances arising out of the order of termination, the Commissioner, Magadh Division ought to have condoned such 2 delay in filing of the appeal. In the considered opinion of this court learned counsel for the petitioner seems to be correct inasmuch as from the records it would appear that after the services of the petitioner was terminated on 29.7.2004 she had moved this Court immediately by filing a writ petition, C.W.J.C.No. 15029/2004 which was permitted to be withdrawn on 1.5.2006 with a liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal. The period spent by the petitioner in pressing the aforesaid writ application, C.W.J.C.No. 15029/2004, therefore, was fit for being condoned and as such, the delay upto 1.5.2006 stands fully explained. It further appears that thereafter the petitioner had filed an appeal directly before the State Government through the departmental secretary and the said appeal was not entertained on the ground that such appeal ought to have been filed before the Commissioner of the Division. This information was given by the office of the departmental secretary to the petitioner on 20.9.2006 vide Annexure 11 to the writ application. Thus, the period between 1.5.2006 to 20.9.2006 also is fully explained. In this background if the petitioner had filed her appeal on 26.8.2006 before the Commissioner of Magadh Division he ought to have not dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay. Such hyper technical approach by the authorities in the matter of exercise of statutory power should be always avoided, inasmuch as the appellate order is the final order wherein all the questions of fact have to be effectively gone into. This Court would therefore disapprove the approach of the Commissioner of Magadh Division 3 in dismissing the appeal of the petitioner only on the ground of limitation. For the reasons recorded above the impugned appellate order dated 4.1.2007, as contained in Annexure 12, is held to be bad and is accordingly quashed. Learned counsel for the State at this stage has informed this Court that now the power of appeal in case of teachers of Primary schools has been vested in the Director, Primary Education and as such, this Court would direct the office of the Divisional Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya to remit the records of Appeal Case No. 28/2006 to the office of the Director, Primary Education within a period of one month from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. The Director, Primary Education on his part upon receipt of record of such appeal filed by the petitioner would proceed further and decide the same in accordance with law preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of record of such appeal in his office. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this application to the extent indicated above is allowed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/