IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4964 of 2009 1. Aman Kumar, Son of Satyanarayan Pd. Singh, resident of village- Bhawanipur, P.S.-Surajgarha, District-Lakhisarai. 2. Sweta Suman D/o Rajendra Mahto of village-Kabalpur, P.S.- Surajgarha, District-Lakhisarai. 3. Archana Sinha, W/o Yugeshwar Prasad of Village-Kishanpur, P.S.- Medanichowki, District-Lakhisarai. 4. Lalan Kumar, Son of Gopal Choudhari of Village-Kabadpur, P.S.- Surajgarha, District-Lakhisarai. 5. Reeta Kumari, Wife of Rajendra Prasad Singh of village-Kishanpur, P.S.-Medani Chowki, District-Lakhisarai. 6. Kiran Kumari, W/o Baleshwar Mahto of village-Karnpur, P.S.- Shambhuganj, District-Bhagalpur. 7. Kumari Nilam, D/o Madusudan Prasad of village-Manikpur, P.S.- Surajgarha, District-Lakhisarai. 8. Mahadeo Kumar, Son of Asarfi Mahto of village-Bhawanipur, P.S.- Surajgarha, District-Lakhisarai. 9. Binod Kumar, Son of Jay Prakash Pandey of village-Bhawanipur, P.S.-Surajgarha, District-Lakhisarai. …………..Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Education Employment Appellate Authority, Lakhisarai. 4. The District Magistrate, Lakhisarai. 5. The District Superintendent of Education, Lakhisarai. 6. The District Education Officer, Lakhisarai. 7. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Lakhisarai. 8. The Block Development Officer, Surajgarha, Lakhisarai. 9. The Block Education Extension Officer, Surajgarha, Lakhisarai. 10. the Mukhiya-Cum-Chairman, Panchayat Shiksha Samiti, Salempur East Panchayat, Surajgarha, Lakhisarai. 11. The Panchayat Secretary, Salempur, East Panchayat, Surajgarha, District- Lakhisarai. ………..Respondents. ----------- 4/ 23.02.2010 Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the counsel appearing for the State. Petitioners’ prayer is for quashing of order dated 17.03.2009 passed by Member District Education Emplolyment Appellate Authority, Lakhisarai, whereby the order passed by 2 the B.D.O. Surajgarha dated 03.10.2008, regarding cancellation of appointment of the petitioners has been affirmed. By the impugned order, petitioners’ appointment has been cancelled with immediate effect. Petitioners were appointed on the post of Panchayat Teachers in the year 2006. In the same transaction 38 candidates were selected for the post of Panchayat Teachers and posted in different Primary/Panchayat Schools. Thereafter, the petitioners joined and started discharging their duties. The appointment of the petitioners was challenged by some unsuccessful candidates by filing an application before the B.D.O. The B.D.O. conducted an ex-parte inquiry and found that the complainants have not actually participated in the counselling, as such, rejected the complaint petition on 23.07.2007, thereafter, another complaint was filed before the B.D.O. at the instance of one Naresh Pandey, who had not even applied for the post of Panchayat Teacher. Applications of such an applicant was considered by the B.D.O. and he passed in order dated 21.10.2008 contained in Letter No. 2464, whereby entire selection was cancelled. Since on 21.10.2008 already there was an amendment in Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules 2006 and on account of such amendment the B.D.O. was no more vested with the power for passing such orders as Rule 18 of 2008 Rules vested such power in the District Teachers’ 3 Employment Appellate Tribunal. As such, the B.D.O. vide order dated 22.10.2008 referred the matter to the District Teachers’ Employment Appellate Tribunal for disposal of the case. On such reference, the District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal, Lakhisarai, vide impugned order dated 17.03.2009 affirmed the order passed by the B.D.O. and cancelled the petitioners’ appointment. The impugned order has been challenged by the petitioners on some other grounds as well but emphasis was on this point that the Appellate Tribunal passed an ex-parte order completely in violation of rule of natural Justice as petitioners, who were appointed on the basis of selection. They were never noticed though, their vested right is going to be affected on account of the impugned order. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 4, which is a cryptic counter affidavit. The statement made in para 36 of the writ petition that petitioners’ termination is in violation of rule of natural justice, has been replied in para 18 of the counter affidavit. The statement in para 18 is that the Mukhiya and Panchayat Secretary were noticed. There is no averment that persons like petitioners, appointed and working, were also noticed, before passing the impugned order. In fact, the statement at para 18 of the counter affidavit is an admission on the part of the respondent that petitioners were not noticed before cancelling their appointment. 4 Considering this the impugned orders dated 17.03.2009 passed by Member, District Education Employment Appellate Tribunal, Lakhisarai and the order dated 03.10.2008 passed by the B.D.O., Surajgarha, are quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Member, District Teachers’ Employment Appellate Tribunal, Lakhisarai, for re- consideration of the matter and for fresh adjudication. The Appellate Tribunal will issue notice to all such persons, who were appointed and working and against whose appointment, complaint had been made. Only after issuing notices to all necessary parties and giving them an opportunity to defend their cases, the Tribunal will pass fresh order. The matter must be decided by the Tribunal within the statutory period, calculating it w.e.f. the date of production/communication of the order. The status quo, as existing, prior to the order passed by the Appellate Authority, shall be restored. Sanjeet/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)