IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9987 of 2009 1. Subhash Kumar Bhagat, S/o-Shivbrat Bhagat, resident of village-Simri Bakhatiyarpur, Sharma Chowk, P.S.-Bakhatiyarpur, District-Saharasa. 2. Manoj Kumar Sharma, S/o-Ramadhin Prasad Sharma, resident of village- Simri Bakhatiyarpur, Saini Tola, P.S.-Bakhatiyarpur, District-Saharsa. -Petitioners. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna. 2. District Magistrate, Saharasa. 3. Director (Primary Education), Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna. 4. District Superintendent of Education, Saharsa. 5. District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Kusum Niwas, Mahavir Mandir Chowk, Gangjala, Saharsa through its Secretary. 6. Block Development Officer, Simri Bakhatiyarpur, District-Saharsa. 7. Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Bakhatiyarpur (South), P.O.-Simari Bakhatiyarpur, District-Saharsa. 8. Panchayat Secretary, Bakhatiyarpur (South), P.O.-Simari Bakhatiyarpur, District-Saharsa. 9. Vijay Kumar, S/o-Lakhan Sah, resident of village-Main Road, Simari Bakhatiyarpur, P.O.-Simri Bakhatiyarpur, P.S.-Bakhatiyarpur, District- Saharsa, at present Panchayat Teacher, Primary School, Saini Tola, P.O.- Simri Bakhatiyarpur, P.S.-Bakhatiyarpur, District-Saharsa. 10. Anil Kumar, S/o-Chedi Sah, resident of village-Kanu Tola, Simari Bakhatiyarpur, P.O.-Simri Bakhatiyarpur, P.S.-Bakhatiyarpur, District- Saharsa, at present Panchayat Teacher, Primary School, Saini Tola, P.O.- Simri Bakhatiyarpur, P.S.-Bakhatiyarpur, District-Saharsa. -Respondents. WITH CWJC No.10632 of 2008 1. Vijay Kumar, son of Lakhan Sah, resident of Main Road, P.O.& P.S.-Simri Bakhatiyarpur, District-Saharsa. 2. Anil Kumar, Son of Chhedi Sah, resident of Mohalla-Kanu Tola, P.O. & P.S.- Simri Bakhatiyarpur, District-Saharsa. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Secretary, Department of Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Department of Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Saharsa. 5. The District Superintendent of Education. 6. The Block Education Extension Officer, Saharsa. 7. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Saharsa. 8. Block Development Officer, Simri Bakhtiyarpur, District-Saharsa. 9. The Panchayat Samiti, Simari Bakhtiyarpur (South), through the Panchayat Secretary, Simri Bakhtiyarpur, District-Saharsa. 10. Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat, Simri Bakhtiyarpur (South), District-Saharsa. - Respondents. - 2 - ----------- 04 08.07.2010 Petitioners by this writ application complain that though the Block Development Officer (B.D.O.), respondent no.6 held the appointment of respondent nos.9&10 to be invalid by his report dated 28.01.2008 and petitioners are not being permitted to join. The dispute, therefore, is as between the two petitioners and the two private-respondents being respondent nos.9&10, who have since appeared. Respondent nos.9&10 are petitioners in second writ application and they have challenged the order of the Block Development Officer dated 28.01.2008. Thus, essentially the dispute is same and both the writ applications are being disposed by this order. The petitioners in the first writ petition alleged that respondent nos.9&10 were wrongly appointed. They complained to the B.D.O., who under Rule 18 was then competent to decide such disputes. The B.D.O. decided the matter by order dated 28.01.2008. By that order the appointment of respondent nos.9&10 was held to be invalid, but inspite of that order when the respondent authorities at the Panchayat level did not permit the petitioners to join, the petitioners came to this Court, which was disposed of on 04.09.2008, directing the District Magistrate to look into the matter, as to whether petitioners had filed representation and disposed of the representation. The District Magistrate, unfortunately, chooses not to do anything in the matter and referred the matter to the District Primary Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, where the matter is pending. - 3 - It appears that in the meantime being aggrieved by the order of the B.D.O., aforesaid respondent nos.9&10, who are writ petitioners in the second writ petition, appealed to the State Government. The matter being considered at the State Government and pursuant to enquiries orders have been passed, vacating the order of the B.D.O. and holding that the petitioners’ appointment was invalid. It is these orders that have been stayed in the first writ petition. In my view, the matter requires consideration as it involves appreciation of various questions of facts. I, therefore, direct the Tribunal, before whom the application of petitioners is pending, having been referred by the District Magistrate, the Tribunal would notice all the parties, being the writ petitioners of the two writ petitions and the officers and after hearing the parties pass orders as it may deem fit and proper in accordance with law. The matter being an old matter, the Tribunal is expected to take expeditious steps in the matter and endeavour that the matter may be disposed of at the earliest but not later than three months from the date of production of copy before the Tribunal. Till final orders of the Tribunal, the parties shall maintain status quo. With these observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Trivedi (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)