IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9797 of 2009 Dharamvir Choudhary son of Sri Rajendra Choudhary, resident of village Kushumbha Halt, P.S. and District Shekhpura….Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Director, Primary Education, Department of Human Resources, Government of Bihar, Vikash Bhawan, Patna 3. The District Officer-cum-District Magistrate, Shekhpura 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Shekhpura 5. The Block Development Officer, Shekhpura 6. The Block Education Extension Officer, Shekhpura 7. The Teachers Appointment Appellate Tribunal, Shekhpura District Shekhpura 8. The Mukhiya, Kushumbha Panchayat, Kushumbha Block, District Shekhpura 9. The Panchayat Secretary, Kushumbha Panchayat, Kushumbha Block, District Shekhpura 10. Dinesh Paswan, son of Late Sagar Paswan, Resident of Village Devle, P.S. and District Shekhpura………………………………………………..…………Respondents ----------- 3 24.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. Petitioner has challenged an order dated 03.02.2009 passed by the Appellate Authority as contained in Annexure-3 by which on the appeal of respondent no.10, the Appellate Authority issued directions to the District Superintendent of Education for conducting fresh counseling of respondent no.10 while cancelling the 2 appointment of the last candidate in the quota of scheduled caste. Petitioner, who is the second candidate appointed in the said quota, is apprehensive of the said order and, therefore, he has moved this Court challenging the same. The contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the order was passed behind his back without hearing him and the said directions were issued which amounted to cancelling of his appointment. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to a letter of the Panchayat Secretary submitted to the Appellate Authority, as contained in Annexure-5, expressing his inability to comply with the said order. The Panchayat Secretary has disclosed in the said letter that respondent no.10 Dinesh Paswan had lesser marks than the persons appointed and other persons empanelled in the category. He has said that the said respondent no.10 had not appeared in the counseling and, therefore, he had no right to be considered for the same. He has also said that as respondent 3 no.10 was 5th position in the panel of the scheduled caste candidate in which petitioner was second and because of his position, petitioner was appointed on the post meant for filling up the candidate from the said quota. In the circumstances, the Panchayat Secretary has expressed his inability to comply with the order of the Appellate Authority. Thus, it is apparent that the matter has been remitted back to the Appellate Authority by the Panchayat Secretary. In the circumstances, it will be appropriate that the Appellate Authority should consider the matter in the light of the said letter of the Panchayat Secretary and pass appropriate orders after hearing the petitioner as well as respondent no.10, on whose complaint initial order was passed, and after considering the said letter of the Panchayat Secretary. If the Appellate Authority thinks it proper, it shall call for the original records concerning appointment and peruse the same and thereafter shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a 4 period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The operation of the earlier order of the Appellate Authority dated 03.02.1999 was stayed by order dated 31.08.2009 and, therefore, the said stay order of this Court shall operate till fresh orders are passed by the Appellate Authority. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)