IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13718 of 2008 Kumari Sanju D/o Ramdatt Thakur, Village Lakshminiya, P.O. Nandlali, P.S. Bihra, District Saharsa…………………………………………………………………………….Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Commissioner – cum - Secretary, Human Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Superintendent of Education, Saharsa. 4. The Block Education Extension Officer, Saharsa North (Sattar Kataiya Block), District Saharsa. 5. The District Magistrate, Saharsa. 6. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Saharsa. 7. The Block Development Officer, Sattar Kataiya Block, Block Saharsa. 8. Panchayat Sachiv, Gram Panchayat Bishanpur, Anchal Sattar Kataiya, District Saharsa. 9. Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Bishanpur, Anchal Sattar Kataiya, District Saharsa. 10. Mamta Kumari, D/o Maheshwar Champant, Village Kataiya, P.O. Sattar, District Saharsa…………………………………………………………………….Respondents --------- For Petitioner: Mr. Anil Kumar Mukund, Advocate For State: Mr. Prahlad Kumar Bhagat, G.P. XIII Mr. Pramod Kumar, A.C to G.P. XIII 2 15.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. From the impugned letter of the Block Development Officer dated 07.08.2008, as contained in Annexure-1, it appears that Deputy Development Commissioner as well as Lokayukt had found that notice to the candidates to appear in the counselling was very short, thus, 2 drawing an inference that many candidates may not have received notices in time to appear for counselling on the date fixed. It is noticed that letters were sent to the candidates through U.P.C. on 06.03.2007 for them to appear in the counselling on 09.03.2007. In the complaint of respondent no.10 it has been stated that she never received letter for appearing in the counselling. The reasons assigned by the Block Development Officer in the impugned order for cancelling appointment of petitioner do not appear to be unreasonable. But this is another matter that, since it was found that too short a notice was given to the candidates, it will vitiate the entire process of selection. The direction of Block Development Officer to the Mukhiya and Panchayat Secretary of the Gram Panchayat to take steps in accordance with law for appointment of the complainant i.e. respondent no.10, hence cannot be considered as proper. However, in absence of respondent no.10, this Court refrains from passing any order quashing that part 3 of impugned letter of the Block Development Officer. This Court, therefore, grants liberty to the petitioner to move the Appellate Authority for necessary orders in the matter on merits. If she does so, the Appellate Authority shall issue notice to respondent no.10, besides Panchayat authorities, shall call for the original records, if necessary, and shall pass an independent order in accordance with law on merits without feeling any impediment from the findings of Block Development Officer in the impugned order or being influenced by the same. The order must be passed by the Appellate Authority within two months from the date of filing of the representation by the petitioner. This writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)