IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7580 of 2008 1. Manju Singh W/o Dhirendra Singh, At – Tenduni Bikramganj, District Rohtas. 2. Umesh Kumar Singh, S/o Prahalad Singh, At + P.O. Mohanpur, P.S. Karakat Gorari, Via- Bikramganj, District Rohtas. 3. Anju Singh, D/o Daroga Singh, Village + P.O. Maudiha, P.S. Nokha, District Rohtas. 4. Phool Chand Mehta, S/o Ram Natha Singh, Village Langeshwar Bigha, Post + P.S. Akhori Gola, District Rohtas……………………………Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Commissioner – cum - Secretary, Department of Human Resources and Development, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director (Secondary Education), Department of Human Resource and Development, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Patna Division, Patna. 5. The District Education Officer, Rohtas, District Rohtas at Sasaram. 6. The Sub-Divisional Education Officer, North Bikramganj, District Rohtas at Sasaram. 7. The Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat Bikramganj, District Rohtas at Sasaram. 8. The Principal, Rajkiyakrita Inter Level High School, Bikramganj, District Rohtas at Sasaram. 9. The Chairman, Nagar Panchayat Bikramganj, District Rohtas at Sasaram. 10.Akhileshwar Paswan, S/o Sudama Ram, Village + P.O. Konar, P.S. Shivasagar, District Rohtas at Sasaram……………Respondents ----------------- 4 06.09.2011 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the State. In this writ application, petitioners have challenged an order passed by the Regional Deputy Director of 2 Education, Patna (in short, “R.D.D.E.”) contained in Memo No.729 dated 02.04.2008 annexed as Annexure-1. From the order it appears that on the complaint of respondent no.10, an enquiry was held by the R.D.D.E. which was the Appellate Authority under the Rules at the relevant time. The R.D.D.E. while considering the complaint of respondent no.10, also examined the records and found many anomalies in the selection process. Hence, he directed the employment agency to initiate a fresh selection process and complete the same on the basis of already received applications, in terms of the Rules. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that factual findings in the orders of R.D.D.E. in respect of alleged anomalies in selection process are errors of record. He has sought to refer the documents annexed with the writ application in support of this stand. He also submits that since the complaint of respondent no.10 was specifically made in respect of post against which petitioner 3 no.1 was appointed, R.D.D.E. should have issued notice to him before passing the impugned order. He submits that this has not been done and the impugned order has been passed on the complaint of respondent no.10 behind the back of petitioners although there was no complaint in respect of the posts on which petitioner nos. 2 to 4 were appointed. Whether, if on enquiry, the entire selection process is found vitiated on the ground of illegalities committed by the employment agency, individual notices to the appointed persons are necessary or not, is a debatable question. However, the findings of fact arrived at by the R.D.D.E. can be challenged by any appointee as error of record. For consideration of this challenge, the entire original records are required to be examined. In the circumstances, for this purpose, this Court considers it appropriate that the matter should be examined by the statutory Appellate Authority constituted in terms of the 2008 Amendment in the Rules which is in more convenient position to call for the 4 entire records and examine the same in reference to the stand of the petitioners and other candidates. In the circumstances, this writ application is disposed of with a direction to R.D.D.E., Patna to refer the entire matter along with the records to the Appellate Authority within four weeks from today. On receipt of the records, the Appellate Authority shall issue notice to the concerned parties giving them opportunity to be heard, shall call for any other records, which may be required, from the office of Nagar Panchayat, Bikramganj and shall decide the matter in accordance with law on merits positively within three months on receipt of the records from the office of the R.D.D.E. For this purpose, the impugned order of the R.D.D.E. shall be treated by the Authority as quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in spite of the order of the R.D.D.E, petitioners were not removed and thereafter this Court, by order dated 24.02.2009, stayed operation of the impugned order. 5 In the circumstances, petitioners shall be entitled for their admissible salary for the period they have worked. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)