IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11965 of 2011 Shabana Anjum,D/O Abdul Mannan,Wife of Md.,Nashimuddin, Resident of village-Mulkiya,P.O.Dibara Bazar, P.S. And Block-B.Kothi, District-Purnia……… petitioner Versus 1.The State of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna 3. The District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Purnea, through its Member. 4. The Block Education Officer, B.Kothi, District-Purnia; 5. The Gram Panchayat Raj Mukhiya, Prakhand-B Kothi, District-Purnea through the Panchayat Sachiv. 6. The Panchayat Sachiv, Gram Panchayat Raj, Mukhiya, Prakhand-B-Kothi, District-Purnea. ----------- 2 27.07.2011 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the State of Bihar. The writ petition has been filed against the order dated 28.4.2011 passed by the District Teacher Employment Appellate Tribunal, Purnia in Case No. 974/2011 by which the appeal filed by her against her termination was rejected. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that she was given appointment letter dated 14.8.2010 and pursuant to the said letter, the petitioner joined as Panchayat Teacher at her place of posting on 16.8.2010 within the time fixed in the aforesaid letter. It appears that the order dated 21.12.2010 came to be passed by the Panchayat Secretary with regard to cancellation of entire selection of Panchayat Teachers as per letter no. 1088 dated 31.8.2010 of the Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna according to which such appointments could not be sustained and they 2 were supposed to be nullified .He submits that said order was passed on an erroneous interpretation of the letter dated 31.8.2010. In this regard, he has drawn the attention of the Court to the portion which mentions that if appointment letters have not been issued within the time, as fixed in that letter, then the same would be illegal and such appointments could not be sustained. In case of Panchayat Teacher the said time limit was 14.8.2010. In the present case the petitioner had been given her appointment letter on 14.8.2010.The petitioner approached at the first stage the District Teacher Appellate Authority which rejected the petitioner’s appeal by order dated 28.4.2011 on the ground that her appointment was not legal. Learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the statement made by the counsel for the petitioner and has tried to draw the attention of the Court regarding the discrepancies in the pleadings. Upon hearing the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the letter of Human Resources Department bearing No. 1088 dated 31.8.2010 is very specific and in clear cut terms which stipulates that such appointment, with regard to which appointment letter has been issued beyond the date fixed, could not be sustained and accordingly appropriate follow up action about such persons has to be taken. But in the present case, it is not in dispute that the appointment letter dated 14.8.2010 has been issued within the time fixed for such appointment. In that view of the matter both the orders, dated 21.12.2010 of the concerned Panchayat Secretary as well as the appellate order dated 28.4.2011 cannot be sustained for reasons as stated above. Accordingly, this writ application is allowed and the said orders are set aside. 3 The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits flowing from such setting aside the impugned orders. Sudha ( Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)