IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11687 of 2010 1. Nitu Kumari W/O Ranjan Kumar Singh R/O Vill Taraiyan, P.O.& P.S.Chakiya, Distt-East Champaran At Motihari 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 Magistrate East Champaran At Motihari, Distt-East Champaran 5. The District Teacher Appointment Appellate Authority East Champaran At Motihari, Distt-East Champaran 6. The District Superintendent Of Education East Champaran At Motihari, Distt-East Champaran 7. The Block Development Officer Kalyanpur, Distt-East Champaran At Motihari 8. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Mani Chapra, Block-Kalyanpur, Distt-East Champaran At Motihari 9. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Mani Chapra, Block-Kalyanpur, Distt-East Champaran At Motihari ---------------------------------- 3 12.12.2011 Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority, as contained in Annexure-6, by which the cases of as many as four complainants were disposed of including that of petitioner. The complaint of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that in view of the evidence produced and the stand taken by the Panchayat Secretary the petitioner had not appeared in the counselling. Learned counsel for the 2 petitioner has pointed out that petitioner had taken a stand before the Appellate Authority that he had not received call letter and in the counselling her signature was obtained on a forged register and the receipt was issued to her by some one else on behalf of the Secretary and not by the Secretary himself. In support of his stand a receipt has been produced as Annexure-4 wherein an endorsement of one Pramod Kumar is there on behalf of Panchayat Secretary. On the last date, this Court had asked learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether this document and stand was taken by the petitioner for the first time before the Appellate Authority or earlier also. In response, learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a representation of the petitioner filed before the S.D.O. on 02.03.2009, i.e., only two days after the counselling in which it appears that specific stand was taken by the petitioner that she apprehends that her signature has been obtained on different register and, as the Panchayat Secretary was not 3 available, one Pramod Kumar has given her receipt. Since this specific stand was taken by the petitioner in her representation before the S.D.O., said to be filed on 02.03.2009, it appears to be a bonfide one. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the copy of this representation was filed before the Appellate Authority also and in her complaint before the Appellate Authority also the petitioner had mentioned about it. In the circumstances, this Court considers it appropriate that the matter of the petitioner be re-examined by the Appellate Authority in the light of the said document. Therefore, the impugned order, so far as petitioner is concerned, is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Appellate Authority to re- examine the matter after giving due notice to the concerned parties and after calling for the original records. The Appellate Authority shall also ascertain from the office of the S.D.O. as to whether, in 4 fact, petitioner had filed her representation in the office only two days after the counselling, or not. If it is established that the petitioner had filed her representation in the office of the S.D.O., as noticed earlier, then only the Appellate Authority shall embark upon fresh inquiry in the matter in which, if necessary, it may call for the concerned individuals to depose before it. It will be appropriate for the Appellate Authority to decide the matter within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Arvind/ ( J.N. Singh, J.)