IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.5494 of 2008 Jitendra Kumar son of Mankeshwar Prasad @ Babulal Prasad, resident of village Sirauna, Police Station Chiraiya, District East Champaran……………………………………………………..……Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar at Patna. 2. The District Magistrate, Motihari East Champaran. 3. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Sirauna, District East Champaran. 4. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Sirauna, Block Chiraiya, District East Champaran. 5. The Block Development Officer, Chiraiya, District East Champaran. 6. The Block Education Officer, Chiraiya, District East Champaran. 7. The District Superintendent of Education, District East Champaran. 8. The Block Welfare Officer, Chiraiya, District East Champaran…………………….Respondents ----------- For Petitioner: Mr. Ram Suresh Rai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mithilesh Kr. Sharma, Advocate For the State: Mr. Maheshwar Dhar Dwivedi, S.C. 23 For Respondents: Mr. Shashi Shekhar, Advocate 4 28.07.2011 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. Petitioner has filed this writ application challenging an order issued by the Panchayat Secretary and Mukhiya dated 29.01.2008 as contained in Annexure-1 by which he has been dismissed from service. The submission of the learned senior 2 counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner was appointed as Shiksha Mitra in 2005 after process of appointment was adopted in accordance with law. It is submitted that in 2007 an enquiry was held of which petitioner was neither given any notice nor in the same he was given any opportunity to appear. On the basis of this enquiry held behind his back, service of the petitioner was terminated by the impugned order. He submits that this action of the respondents is clearly in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to an earlier order of the Appellate Authority as contained in Annexure-6 with I.A. No.1183 of 2011. By this order, the Appellate Authority had disposed of an application of one complainant and had issued directions for putting the two teachers appointed by the B.D.O. in 2003 and 2005 in appropriate category and to take steps for appointment of teachers on the basis of the enquiry report. He submits that the Appellate Authority also did not consider that there 3 were no vacancies to be filled up. Therefore, if any incumbent was required to be removed for compliance of its orders, he ought to have been given notice. It appears that in the dispute which is continuing, all the concerned parties are not being heard at a time and the authorities of the Panchayat are acting in a slipshod manner and are taking decision as and when they find convenient and in a piecemeal. In the circumstances, since controversy has been continuing between the parties for quite sometime, this Court considers it appropriate for the petitioner to move the Appellate Authority now constituted in terms of 2008 amendment in the Rules. This Court, therefore, directs the petitioner to file an application to the concerned Appellate Authority constituted under the Rules within four weeks from today. If they do so, the Appellate Authority shall call for the original records if necessary, issue notice to the concerned parties who may be affected by its decision and shall finally decide the 4 dispute in accordance with law preferably within two months from the date of filing of the application by the petitioner, on its own merit and without going into the question of limitation. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)