IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5492 of 2008 REENA KUMARI . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 4 12.5.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the State. Despite proper service of notice, respondent no.9 has not entered appearance, to controvert the statement made in the writ application challenging the order dated 26.11.2007 contained in Letter no. 1189, issued under the signature of Block Development Officer, Kurtha, whereby appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled. The impugned order has been challenged on the ground that without issuing any notice to the petitioner his appointment has been cancelled by the Block Development Officer. It has also been stated that by the impugned order the Block Development Officer has directed to cancel the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that respondent no.9 was not noticed for participating in the counselling. On the other hand, it has also been stated that petitioner was appointed legally on 2 account of non appearance of respondent no.9. Since the Block Development Officer has partly decided in favour of the petitioner and partly in favour of respondent no.9, it is proper that it should be quashed and the matter be referred to the District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal, Jehanabad for fresh consideration of the matter. Accordingly, the order dated 26.11.2007 contained in letter no. 1189 is quashed. This matter is remanded to the Tribunal for deciding it afresh, after issuing notice to all concerned. Counsels appearing for the State as well as petitioner both are directed to communicate this order to the Tribunal within one month from today, for deciding this matter within the statutory period. (Mridula Mishra,J.) A.Kumar