IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2053 of 2007 Anil Kumar Mishra, son of Sri Paras Nath Mishra, resident of village- Mishra Balia, Post- karshar, P.S. Nawanagar (Assistant P.S. Sonebarsa), District- Buxar ………. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Secretary, Primary and Adult Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, patna 3. The State Project Director, Bihar Education Project Council, Bihar, Patna 4. The District Magistrate, Buxar 5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dumraon, District- Buxar 6. The District Superintendent of Education-cum- District Programme Coordinator, Buxar, District- Buxar 7. Sri Krishna Nand Singh son of not known, the panchayat Secretary-cum-Gram Sevak, karshar Gram Panchayat, Nawanagar Block, District- Buxar 8. Smt.Prabhabati Devi, wife of Sri Birendra kumar yadav, the Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Karshar, Nawanagar Block, District- Buxar 9. Sri Deepak Kumar Pandey, son of Sri Ram Narayan Pandey, resident of village Barasat, P.O. Karshar, P.S. Nawanagar (Assistant P.S. Sonebarsa), District- Buxar ……… Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr.Tej Bahadur Singh, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Arvind Krs.Singh, Adv. For the State : Mr.Rakesh Ambastha,A.C. to A.A.G.-5 For Respondent No.3: Mr.Grijesh Kumar,Adv. ----------- 2. 03/11/2009 Petitioner has filed this writ application for quashing of Annexure-1 dated 5.2.2007 by which the Collector of the District- Buxar has terminated his services as Panchayat Teacher. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was appointed as Shiksha Mitra on 3.6.2005 and he continued as such and - 2 - thereafter, after coming of the Rules in force, his contractual service got converted into regular service as Panchayat Teacher, in which capacity he continued till the date of issue of impugned order. He submits that the impugned order is bad on three counts, namely, (i) after coming of the Rules in force, the Collector of a District had no jurisdiction to entertain any objection or appeal and the power got vested in the Block Development Officer in such matters; (ii) objection of the respondent was filed allegedly on 30th December, 2005, although action was taken on the same only after 25th November, 2006, which was beyond the time limit fixed for filing any objection and therefore objection could not be legally entertained; and (iii) termination order was issued in utter violation of Principles of Natural Justice. In support of the contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner sought to rely on two judgments of this Court, one in the case of Alok Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2009(2) PLJR 929 and the other in the case of Smt.Sugapati Devi Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2008(1) PLJR 466. - 3 - However, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State agree that now the Appellate Authorities constituted by the State Government under Rule 18 of the Bihar Panchayat Prarambhik Shikshak (Niyojan Avam Seva Sart) Niyamvali, 2006 (as amended by Amendment Act, 2008) are functional and are now efficacious alternative forums available to the petitioner and others for consideration of their grievances. In view of the submissions of the learned counsels and in view of the availability of the efficacious alternative forum for consideration of matters relating to employment of Shiksha Mitra/Panchayat Shikshak, the writ application is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate application before the concerned Appellate Authority, if not already filed, for redressal of his grievance. In case such an application is filed by the petitioner, the Appellate Authority shall consider the same and all documents enclosed, including orders of this Court in identical matters, if produced therewith, and make all endeavours to dispose of the same on its own - 4 - merits after hearing the parties concerned by a speaking order preferably within the time prescribed under the Rules for the purpose without going into the question of limitation. In the meanwhile, respondents are directed to pay the dues of the petitioner, if not already paid, for the period he had actually worked, i.e., as claimed by him, 3.6.2005 to 5.2.2007. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the merits of the claim of the petitioner. Pradeep/ (J. N. Singh, J.)