IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15791 of 2010 1. BIRENDRA S/O LATE SHREE CHANDRA YADAV R/O VILLAGE AT PAHARPUR, POST- NAUGADH, P.S.- AMAS, DISTT.- GAYA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRIMARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GAYA 5. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, GAYA 6. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, AMAS, GAYA 7. MAMTA KUMARI W/O AJAY KUMAR SINGH R/O VILL.- DEMUA TOLE, BAHERA, P.S. + BLOCK- AMAS, DISTT.- GAYA ----------- 2 03/05/2011 By virtue of Annexure-1 dated 30.08.2010 the Member, District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority, Gaya did find that appellant Mamta Kumari (respondent no. 7) had acquired Intermediate degree while she was still a Panchayat Shiksha Mitra. The findings are that it will be an impossibility for a teacher to pursue regular class as well shoulder the responsibility as a Panchayat Shiksha Mitra. Petitioner is Mukhia of the concerned Gram Panchayat who has been saddled with a direction passed by the Appellate Authority that he will pay 1/3rd of the salary which the appellant had drawn on her continuance as a teacher and stated to be in - 2 - connivance with the petitioner and three others and so responsibility was fixed upon them. This is how the apportionment of 1/3rd has been done by which the petitioner is aggrieved. After having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State, the Court has no hesitation in recording that the Appellate Authority has gone overboard by passing an order of such kind because power of the Appellate Authority is limited to adjudication of dispute in relation to appointment but making orders of such kind having financial implication or imposing fine is not within the domain of such a quasi judicial authority. Maximum which the Appellate Authority could have done was to refer the matter to the competent authority under the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act for appropriate action against the petitioner but such an order is neither within the terms of constitution of such a Tribunal nor the powers vested therein. Annexure-1 to that extent stands quashed. This writ application is allowed. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)