IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.19695 of 2011 ABDUR RAHMAN S/O ABDUL WAHID, R/O VILLAGE- DUBRI KHAS HARUA DANGA, P.O. MANGURA, P.S.- DIGHAL BANK, DISTRICT- KISHANGANJ, AT PRESENT WORKING AS PANCHAYAT TEACHER IN PRIMARY SCHOOL- BAIJNATH PALSA, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ SINGHIMARI, P.S.- DIGHAL BANK, DISTRICT- KISHANGANJ ……….Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KISHANGANJ 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, KISHANGANJ 5. THE DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER (ESTABLISHMENT) KISHANGANJ 6. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, DIGHAL BANK, DISTRICT- KISHANGANJ 7. THE MEMBER, DISTRICT TEACHER’S EMPLOYMENT APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KISHANGANJ 8. THE MUKHIYA OF GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ SINGHIMARI, P.S.- KIGHAL BANK, DISTRICT- KISHANGANJ 9. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY OF GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ SINGHIMARI, P.S.- DIGHAL BANK, DISTRICT-KISHANGANJ 10. MD. SAFIQUE ALAM S/O SAMSUDDIN, R/O VILLAGE- SINGHIMARI MILIK, P.O & P.S.- KORHABARI, DISTRICT- KISHANGANJ. ………….Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ram Sagar Singh, Adv. For the State : Mr. Dhirendra Kumar, A.C. to S.C.-16 ----------- 2. 16.11.2011 The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 01.10.2011 passed by the Member, District Teacher’s Employment Appellate Authority, Kishanganj (Respondent no.7) in Case No. 397 of 2011, by which the Respondent no. 10 has been directed to be appointed after cancelling the petitioner’s appointment. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the solitary reason for the same is that the petitioner is stated not to have approached the Block Development Officer-cum-appellate authority with any objection or appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is a patent error of record and the finding of the Tribunal is belied by the letter of objections dated 6.11.2007 appearing at Annexure no.5 to the writ petition, which was in fact filed by him before the Block Development Officer. Learned counsel for the State is present. In view of the representation/ objection stated to have been filed by the petitioner before the Block Development Officer, the Tribunal appears to have fallen in oversight thereof. If that be so, the Tribunal’s order would stand vitiated inasmuch as this is solitary ground for deciding against the petitioner. In the above view of the matter, therefore, the order of the tribunal dated 01.10.2011passed in Case No. 397 of 2011 is set aside with a direction to pass orders afresh after considering the materials on record and after hearing the parties in accordance with law. With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Fahad. ( Vikash Jain, J. )