IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16183 of 2011 Sonu Samdarshi son of Sri Parshuram Priyadarshi, resident of Village + P.O. Sakhua, Via Pipra Bazar, P.S. Pipra Bazar, District- Supaul. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Principal Secretary cum Commissioner, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar New Secretariat, Patna. 3. The Member, District Teacher Recruitment Appellate Authority, Supaul 4. The District Education Officer, Supaul. 5. The Mukhiya Gram Panchayat, Dinapatti, Block Pipra, District- Supaul. 6. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Dinappati, Block Pipra, District- Supaul. … Respondents ----------- 2 20.09.2011 Heard both the parties. This writ petition has been filed being aggrieved by the dismissal order of the District Teacher Appointment Appellate Tribunal, Supaul in Case No. 215 of 2009 which has been dismissed in limine on the ground that the memo of appeal has been addressed to the District Superintendent of Education, Supaul through the Appellate Tribunal. Learned counsel for the petitioner appears and submits that the memo of appeal (Annexure-3) was inadvertently so addressed to the District Superintendent of Education rather it should have been addressed to the Appellate Tribunal itself. The body of memo of appeal also shows that the appeal was intended to be filed before the Appellate Tribunal. It transpires from the impugned order itself that the Tribunal did in fact initially proceed to act upon the memo of appeal and heard the mater on various dates and even issued directions to the other side for production of records. Thereafter, 2 without notice to the petitioner, the appeal was dismissed on the technical ground of having been wrongly addressed as aforesaid. This Court is of the view that the error in addressing the memo of appeal was but a technical lapse clearly advertant on the part of the petitioner and the tribunal ought not to have dismissed the appeal on that score alone without opportunity to the appellant (petitioner herein) more so when the tribunal itself had also acted on the same. In this view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the Appellate Tribunal is set aside with a liberty to the petitioner to make appropriate correction in the memo of appeal and if the same is done within the period of two weeks hereof the same shall be considered afresh on merits by the Tribunal and disposed of by speaking order after affording due opportunity to the parties. Md. Ibrarul ( Vikash Jain, J.)