IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4974 of 2009 SHAGUFTA ZAFRE Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 18.04.2009 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner claims to have been considered for appointment as a Panchayat Teacher, appointed and joined duties on 1.11.2007. Private respondent no. 14 made a claim of having higher marks and consequent illegal denial of appointment. On 24.1.2008 the Block Development Officer by his order, after examination of the grievance of private respondent no. 14, rejected her claim. This was an order passed by him in exercise of statutory powers under Rule 18 of the Appointment Rules as then existing. On 25.8.2008, by amendment of the erstwhile rules for appointment framed in 2008, an Appellate Authority was created. Respondent no. 14 then petitioned the Appellate Authority in 2009. It is the case of the petitioner that the earlier order of the Block Development Officer was not placed by the private respondent no. 14 before the Appellate Authority and it also finds no reference in the fresh impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority on 13.4.2009.The Appellate Authority without issuing notice to the petitioner, a statement specifically made on oath in Para 12 of the writ petition, gave directions to set aside the appointment of the petitioner and appointed respondent no. 14. 2 This Court does not consider it necessary at this stage to decide the other issues raised on behalf of the petitioner as that would necessitate notice to private respondent no. 14. On the simple ground of infirmity in the decision making process, the operation of the impugned order dated 13.4.2009 is set aside for the limited purpose of remand of the matter to the Appellate Authority to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law after hearing all concerned including the petitioner and the private respondent no. 14 in the light of the above discussion. The Appellate Authority shall be obliged to consider the ambit of his powers with regard to statutory orders passed by the Block Development Officer under Rule 18 of the erstwhile rules also. No useful purpose shall be served by staying the operation of the impugned order today and issuing notice to the private respondent. This Court is today hearing writ applications of the year-2001. The present matter shall, therefore, be heard years hence which shall hardly be conducive to justice or the interests of the petitioner and the private respondent. The Appellate Authority is obliged to decide the matter finally vis a vis the petitioner and respondent no. 14 within the statutory time fixed under the rules creating the Appellate Authority more particularly Rule 2 to be computed from the date that the petitioner presents a copy of this order before the Appellate Authority . In order to prevent creation of a third party interest in the meantime by any consequent appointment which may further complicate the issue, this Court directs that if vacancy has been 3 created in pursuance of the impugned order by implementation thereof and the petitioner has been removed, no appointment shall be made on such vacancy till the matter is not finally decided. The writ application stands disposed off. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)