IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12006 of 2010 1. RAJAN KUMAR S/O SRI AMRENDRA PRASAD VILLAGE AND P.O.- KAIRIYA, P.S.- KAHALGAON, DISTT.- BHAGALPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BHAGALPUR 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, BHAGALPUR 5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, KAHALGAON, DISTT.- BHAGALPUR 6. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER KAHALGAON, DISTT.- BHAGALPUR 7. THE MEMBER, DISTRICT TEACHER'S APPOINTMENT APPELLATE AUTHORITY, BHAGALPUR 8. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KAHALGAON, BHAGALPUR ----------- 2 9.12.2010 After having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State including I.A. No. 10083 of 2010, this Court is of the considered opinion that the matter can be disposed of finally at this juncture itself looking at the nature of the dispute which has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. First contention of the petitioner is that his service has been terminated pursuant to the decision given by the District Employment Appellate Authority in terms of annexure-6 without holding or declaring in any manner the appointment of the wife of the petitioner was in any manner illegal. Petitioner’s wife was appointed as Panchayat Shikshak and on her death, the present petitioner got benefit of compassionate appointment. Since no finding has been given therefore he could not be terminated. Second objection taken is that the Appellate Authority has no jurisdiction to exercise power in absence of any - 2 - decision having been taken by the Block Development Officer in relation to the employment in question because the forum is of appeal having appellate jurisdiction. In the opinion of this Court both the issues can be looked into by the Appellate Authority if the petitioner moves the Appellate Authority by virtue of the order of this Court. To some extent the petitioner is correct in saying that there is no discussion with regard to the appointment of his wife and therefore he could not be condemned unheard or any finding having been recorded with regard to the validity of such appointment. This Court intentionally refrains from recording any opinion on the merit of the order dated 9.6.2010 in view of the fact that the issue is being remanded back. If the petitioner moves the Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority will render its opinion in relation to the appointment of the wife of the petitioner as well as the question of law having been raised that in absence of any adjudication by the B.D.O. the Appellate Authority has no jurisdiction to exercise. The Court expects an early decision in this regard. This writ application is disposed of with the above direction. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)