IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.W.J.C. No.11501 of 2008 Gita Kumari, wife of Sri Chandreshekhar Yadav, resident of village Dodiha, P.S. Singhia, district Samastipur .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Old Secretariat, Bihar, Patna 2. The Home Secretary, Old Secretariat, Bihar, Patna 3. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Bihar, Patna 4. The Commissioner, Laherisarai, Darbhanga 5. The District Magistrate, Darbhanga 6. The District Development Commissioner, Darbhanga 7. The Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, within Darbhanga 8. The Block Development Officer, Baheri, within Darbhanga 9. Lalita Kumari, w/o Ramesh Kumar Yadav, resident of village Metunia, P.S. Baheri, district Darbhanga .. Respondents **** /2/ 17.03.2009 Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead Lalita Kumari as respondent no. 9 to this application. 2. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the State. 3. Petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Block Development Officer, Baheri, Darbhanga, contained in Memo No. 1522, dated 30.06.2008, whereby the appointment of the petitioner as teacher has been cancelled in exercise of jurisdiction under Rule 18 of 2006 Rules. - 2 - Petitioner’s grievance is that the enquiry, which was conducted by the Block Development Officer receiving some complaints by one Lalita Kumari, was in violation of principle of natural justice. No notice to show cause was issued to the petitioner. She was not assigned any opportunity to explain the circumstance in which she was appointed observing all procedures as provided under 2006 Rules. The impugned order of the Block Development Officer indicates that several records were consulted and Mukhiya as well as Panchayat Secretary were noticed. It is also apparent that the information regarding selection sent to Lalita Kumari, annexed as Annexure 5 to the writ application, was not considered by the Block Development Officer as proper information to Lalita Kumari. Signature of Lalita Kumari, as shown in Annexure 5, has been denied by her and stated to be a forged signature. 4. All these matters need personal hearing of the parties as well as perusal of concerned records, before any order is passed in this case. This exercise can not be done by this Court sitting in writ jurisdiction. The Block Development Officer has passed the order in exercise of - 3 - jurisdiction under Rule 18 of 2006 Rules. Now the Rule has been amended by 2008 Rules. Under the amended provisions the proper forum for consideration of all such complaints/objections is District Level Committee constituted under Rule 18 of 2008 Rules. It is proper that petitioner may represent her case against the impugned order before the District Level Committee. In case of filing of such representation, the District Level Committee should issue notice to all concerned persons, including Lalita Kumari, call for the concerned records and decide the matter afresh in accordance with law preferably within three months from the date of filing such representation. 5. With these observations and directions, this application is disposed off. Cp2/S.A. (Mridula Mishra, J.)