IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9044 of 2009 PRASUN KUMAR CHOUDHARY, S/O SRI VIJAY BAHADUR CHOUDHARY, R/O VILLAGE-BABHANI, P.S.-DAWATH, DISTRICT-ROHTAS. ………………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, ROHTAS, AT SASARAM. 3. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL EDUCATION OFFICER, BIKRAMGANJ, DISTRICT-ROHTAS. 4. THE DISTRICT TEACHER EMPLOYMENT APPELLATE AUTHORITY, ROHTAS AT SASARAM THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN. 5. THE MEMBER, DISTRICT TEACHER EMPLOYMENT AUTHORITY, ROHTAS AT SASARAM. 6. THE CHAIRMAN, NAGAR PANCHAYAT, KOATH, DISTRICT-ROHTAS. 7. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NAGAR PANCHAYAT, KOATH, ROHTAS. 8. UMA KANT SINGH, S/O LATE RAM RAJ SINGH, R/O VILLAGE-GAUGATI, P.S.-DAWATH, DISTRICT- ROHTAS. …………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 3 06.10.2010 Petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 28.05.2009, as contained in Annexure-13, by which his appointment as Nagar Sikshak has been cancelled on the ground that inspite of the fact that he had not appeared in the counseling he had been appointed. In the order, it has been held that in the list of counseling his name appeared at serial no.37 and was shown absent. The next person at serial no. 38 was also shown absent. Thereafter, at serial no.39 the name of 2 complainant was mentioned and he was shown present. As such when the candidates at serial nos. 37 and 38 were absent the complainant who was at next serial should have been appointed. However, the Appellate Authority while cancelling the appointment of the petitioner has not passed orders for appointment of respondent no.8. Learned counsel for the respondent no.8 submits that the respondent no.8 is not interested now in this appointment as he has already got an employment in the Jharkhand State. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that while cancelling the appointment of the petitioner, the Appellate Authority did not give notice to the petitioner and thus, the order is ex parte and in violation of Principles of Natural Justice. He also submits that on the next date the petitioner had appeared in the counseling and on the basis of the same he was appointed. So far as violation of Principles of Natural Justice is concerned, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is 3 correct. The order of the Appellate Authority does not show that the petitioner was noticed by the Appellate Authority and was heard before the impugned order cancelling his appointment was passed and, therefore, on that score only the impugned order is fit to be quashed. The same is accordingly quashed. So far as appearance of the petitioner in the counseling on the next date is concerned, this Court does not express any opinion on the same. The writ application is allowed. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)