IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3030 of 2009 SANGITA KUMARI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2 5.3.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. It was with great hope and expectation that the change in law was introduced so that the lot of Panchayat Shikshak himself could get an appropriate independent forum for redressal of their grievance through experienced senior judicial/administrative officers of this State by constituting District Teachers Appellate Authority. How far the said objective would be achieved can only be assessed only after allowing such Appellate Authority to function for some time but if the performance of such Appellate Forum in the beginning, as in this case, can be of any indication, the same must be held to pathetic if not disastrous. This Court would find that certain complaints were made by the respondent no.8 against the appointment of the petitioner before the District Teacher Appellate Authority, Sitamarhi. From the entire order- 2 sheet (Annexure-3), it is clear that the said Appellate Authority had only entertained the plea of the respondent no.8 or the officials but never had cared to either issue a notice to the petitioner or give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, whose appointment was assailed by the Respondent no. 8. The decision of the Appellate Authority to set aside the appointment of the petitioner by holding it to be illegal and therefore, cannot be sustained in as much it is in violation of principles of natural justice. This Court, in such circumstances, is left with no option but to quash the impugned order dated 19.2.2009 passed by ‘Zila Shikshak Niyojan Appealye Pradhikar, Sitamarhi and remit the mater back to the said Pradhhikar which now will issue notice to the respondent no.8 and as also to the concerned officials. To expedite the matter, the petitioner is directed to appear before the authority along with a copy of this order whereafter the authority will fix a date and dispose of the complaint of the respondent no.8 in accordance with law within a period of next three months. 3 However, it is made clear that till such a decision is taken by the authority, neither the services of the petitioner will be dispensed with nor the respondent no.8 will be appointed in the place of the petitioner. With the aforementioned observations /direction, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)