IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1563 of 2011 Poonam Kumari, wife of Surendra Kumar ‘Suman’, Resident of Village-Agargarha, Police Station- Marauna, District-Supaul ……………. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. The Director, Primary Education, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Distt. Supaul 5. The Block Education Extension Officer, Marauna, District-Supaul 6. The District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Tribunal through member, Supaul, Distt. Supaul 7. Gram Panchayat, Marauna North, Prakhand Marauna, District Supaul through its Panchayat Secretary 8. Usha Kumari, Daughter of Ram Kumar Datta, resident of village- Marauna P.S. + Block-Marauna, District- Supaul …………Respondents ---------------------------------- For the petitioner: M/s. Krishna Kumar & Ram Chandra Jha ‘Raman’, Advocates For the State: Mr. Lakmesh Marvind, AC to SC-09 ------------------------------------ 2. 5.8.2011 The writ petition appears to be wholly misconceived. Earlier the respondent no. 8 had approached this Court against an order dated 4.5.2010 passed by the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Supaul in Appeal No. 496/2009 by which the appointment of respondent no. 8 (petitioner in that case) had been cancelled and this Court by order dated 16.7.2010 had allowed the writ petition on the ground that the order had been passed 2 without notice and without hearing the respondent no. 8 and set aside the impugned order dated 4.5.2010 and remanded the matter for fresh consideration to the Appellate Authority upon hearing the parties and then passing a speaking order considering all the contentions as may be raised. It was further directed that as the respondent no. 8 was not aware of the proceedings and the allegations, the respondent no. 8 would file a copy of the order before the Tribunal within three weeks from that date who would notice all the parties apart from the respondent no. 8 and rehear the matter and decide the same in accordance with law afresh preferably within two months. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no. 8 has not approached the Appellate Authority and, accordingly, no further developments have taken place. If that be so, the conduct of respondent no. 8 would be quite unjustified; however, in the absence of the said respondent this Court would not like to pass any remarks against him. In my view, since the matter had been 3 remanded for fresh consideration to the Appellate Authority, even if the respondent no. 8 has not approached the Appellate Authority with a copy of the order dated 16.7.2010 of this Court, it would be open to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority for passing a fresh order after hearing all the parties in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. S.Pandey ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)