IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.86 of 2011 SHAHEEN KAUSAR D/o Md. Sayeedur Rahman, resident of Village Majgama, P.O. Kanhaiya Bari, P.S. Kochadhaman, District, Kishanganj… …..(Petitioner) ….Appellant Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, through Secretary, Human Resources Development, Deptt. Govt. of Bihar, Patna, 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Purnea Division, Purnea, 3. The Collector, Kishanganj, 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Kishanganj, 5. The Block Development Officer, Kochadhaman, District Kishanganj, 6. The Block Education Extention Officer, Kochadhaman, Distraict Kishanganj, 7. The Mukhiya, Majgama Panchayat, Kochadhaman, District Kishanganj, 8. The Panchayat Secretary, Majgama Panchayat, Kochadhaman, District Kishanganj… …..(Respondents)…..Respondents ……… For the Appellant : Mr. Abbas Haider with Mr. Hussain Majeed, Advocates For the State : Mr. Manish Dhari Singh, AC to GP-III For Respondent No.7 : Mr.Manoj Kumar, Advocate. ……… 6 13.05.2011 Heard the parties. Writ petition preferred by the appellant bearing CWJC No.17787 of 2008 has been disposed of by the order under appeal dated 08.10.2010 without interfering with the order impugned contained in Annexures- 4 and 5 dated 28.9.2008 and 12.9.2008 2 respectively, whereby appellant's appointment on the post of Panchayat Teacher in New Primary School, Majgama, (South) in the District of Kishanganj was cancelled by the concerned authority on the basis of a letter dated 26.7.2008 of the BDO, Kochadhaman. In place of appellant, one Kahkashan Begum was subsequently appointed. While the writ petition was pending, another affected applicant Shabana Khatoon and some others again approached the District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal, Kishanganj through Appeal No.206. That appeal was allowed vide order dated 7.1.2010 contained in Annexure- 7. In this order, it was held that the entire selection process was vitiated and must be held afresh. The writ Court, in such circumstances observed that the petitioner can only take steps for fresh appointment in the fresh selection process. The objection was raised on behalf of the appellant that the order of the BDO dated 26.07.2008 which was the basis of removal of the appellant was not made available and the BDO had acted as the appellate authority and had issued a letter without 3 affording any opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Same grievance has been raised in respect of appellate order dated 07.1.2010 contained in Annexure 7. The State in its counter affidavit has annexed the letter of the BDO dated 26.7.2008 contained in Annexure B which shows that the appellant had secured lesser marks than Kahkasha Begum and on that ground appellant's appointment was found defective. The order contained in Annexure-7 reveals that in the attendance sheet prepared in proof of presence of applicants at the time of counselling, the appellant has not signed and on that basis it has been concluded that she was not present for counselling and still she was selected. However, there is no reply to the allegations made by the appellant that orders and decisions passed against her were without notice and without affording any opportunity of hearing. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon a document annexed as Annexure-8 to show that the meeting was held on the occasion of selection and after counseling three persons were 4 shown as applicants present for counselling and that included the name of the appellant also. We are not inclined to interfere with the disputes of facts in view of unanswered allegation that appellant was not given any notice or opportunity of hearing before adverse decisions were taken against her through Annexure 4 and subsequently during the pendency of the writ petition through Annexure-7. It is well established that in a proceeding like one before the appellate authority, the minimum requirement of natural justice was to issue notice and afford opportunity of hearing to the affected persons. Since that has not been done, the decisions against the appellant vide Annexure-4 and subsequently vide Annexure 7 in so far as they adversely affect the appellant are quashed. The order under appeal is also set aside and the matter is remitted back to the competent appellate authority for fresh decision in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The appellant is directed to appear before the appellate authority with a copy of this order within four weeks and thereafter the 5 appellate authority shall fix a date for hearing and decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. The appeal is allowed only to that extent. Sanjay-II (Shiva Kirti Singh, J) ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)