IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2935 of 2009 Ambikesh Kumar Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ----------- 06. 01.07.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra for 11 months with effect from 13.05.2005. He was continuing to discharge his duties on his post, but suddenly payment of honorarium to the petitioner was stopped, as Appointment Enquiry Committee found his appointment as illegal. In place of the petitioner, Ram Ganit Kumar, Respondent No. 14 was appointed. Petitioner was terminated on the complaint of Respondent No. 14 that his qualifications are higher and despite the fact he has been given equal point. Petitioner filed his representation before the Block Development Officer, Sherghati and also before Deputy Superintendent of Education, Sherghati, but nothing was done. He filed his representation also before District Superintendent of Education, Sherghati, who directed the Block Development Officer, Sherghait for submitting report on petitioner’s appointment. Petitioner’s allegation is that the Block Education 2 Extension Officer submitted a collusive report. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the report is indicative of the fact that it has come to an erroneous conclusion and had recorded a perverse finding against the evidences available on the record. This application has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the order of termination, which was never supplied to the petitioner and also the verification report dated 22.08.2006, submitted by Four- Men Committee, constituted by District Superintendent of Education, affirming the termination of the petitioner. Counter Affidavit has been filed on behalf of State, denying the allegations. Along with the Counter Affidavit, letter of Director, Primary Education, addressed to all District Magistrates, has been annexed as Annexure – A, which relates to disposal of all complaints relating to Teachers’ appointment in between the year 2003-05. Through this letter, information has been sent that all complaints relating to Teacher’s appointment between the year 2003-05, shall be disposed of by the District Magistrates and not by the District Teachers’ Appointment Appellate Tribunal. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he has represented the case before the District Magistrate 3 against the termination order as well as the verification report. But till date, that has not been disposed of and it is pending. Considering the fact that the District Magistrate is authorized to decide the complaints / objections relating to appointment in between the year 2003-05 and the petitioner’s representation / complaint is still pending before the District Magistrate, Gaya, this application is being disposed of remanding this matter to the District Magistrate, Gaya, directing him to decide and dispose of the pending objection / complaint of the petitioner. The representation of the petitioner must be disposed of with a reasoned order within four weeks from the date of production / communication of this Order. District Magistrate will dispose of petitioner’s representation, calling all connected records relating to appointment of petitioner and other as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra. SKM (Mridula Mishra, J.)