IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5623 of 2008 Avilasha Kumari, Wife of Shri Chandra Shekhar Singh, Resident of Village Keni, Police Station Khijzarsarai, District Gaya….............................Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Director (Primary Education), Human Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Gaya. 4. The Block Development Officer, Khizarsarai, Gaya. 5. The District Superintendent of Education, Gaya. 6. The Block Education Extension Officer, Khizarsarai, Gaya. 7. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat, Lodipur, Block Khijarsarai, District Gaya. 8. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Lodipur, Block Khijarsarai, District Gaya. 9. Kumari Anita Sinha, wife of Mahesh Prasad, resident of village Keni, Police Station Khijarsarai, District Gaya. 10. Asha Kumari, Wife of Satendra Kumar, Resident of Panchmahla, Police Station Khijarsarai, District Gaya. 11. Chandramani Kumari, Wife of Roshan Kumar, resident of Village Lodipur, Police Station Khijarsarai, District Gaya………………Respondents ----------- 6 21.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the respondents. Through the supplementary affidavit, learned counsel for the petitioner has brought on record an order passed by the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Gaya dated 14.02.2011 by which, 2 he submits, the complaint of the petitioner was rejected without issuing any notice to petitioner and without giving any opportunity of hearing. He submits that petitioner had earlier filed complaint before the district authorities and the matter was pending with them when the statutory Appellate Authority was constituted. Hence, as per Bihar Panchayat Prarambhik Shikshak (Niyojan Avam Seva Sart) Niyamvali, 2006 (as amended by Amendment Act, 2008), original records were sent to the Appellate Authority for proceeding in the matter in accordance with law. However, on receipt of the records, the Appellate Authority did not issue any notice to the petitioner and did not inform her that it was going to hear the matter and decide the same ex parte and rejected her complaint. If that is so, petitioner is granted liberty to file an application before the Appellate Authority for recall of the order and for re-hearing of the matter on the ground that she was not noticed and heard earlier. If the Appellate Authority finds 3 that after receipt of the records from the district authorities, no notice was issued to the petitioner, it shall recall its order and shall hear the matter afresh, give an opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties and shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law on merits. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)