IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14579 of 2007 MD.TANWIR ALAM, SON OF MD. IDRIS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MANDAR, P.S. MORKAHI, DISTRICT KHAGARIA……………………………….………………PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SAHARSA 4. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, SAHARSA 5. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, SAHARSA 6. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SOUR BAZAR, SAHARSA 7. BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, SOUR BAZAR, SAHARSA 8. PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT SUHATH BLOCK SOUR BAZAR, DISTRICT SAHARSA 9. MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT SUHANTH, BLOCK SOUR BAZAR, DISTRICT SAHARSA 10.MD.MUSLIM, SON OF MD. KHALIL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST TRIYAMA, P.S. SIMRI BAKHTIARPUR, DISTRICT SAHARSA………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 3. 19.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. This writ application was filed by the petitioner for quashing an order passed by the then Block Development Officer, Sour Bazar, Saharsa dated 31.7.2007 vide Annexure-7 by which services of the petitioner were terminated by the respondent –Block Development Officer in exercise of power conferred under Rule 18 of the Bihar Panchayat Teachers Employment and Service Conditions Rules, 2006 on appeal preferred by one Md. Muslim. - 2 - During the pendency of the writ application, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, Saharsa. The Appellate Authority by order dated 2.3.2009 has rejected the appeal of the petitioner on the ground that the Appellate Authority has no jurisdiction to entertain another appeal under Rule 18 of the Rules against an order passed by the Block Development Officer in exercise of power under Rule 18 as it was then existing. The said order of the Appellate Authority is annexed as Annexure- 10 with the supplementary affidavit. It is true that prior to amendment of Rule 18 of the Rules, the appellate power was vested in the Block Development Officer. However, after amendment, appellate power in any matter of employment has been vested in the appellate authority constituted at the district level under the Rules. Therefore, technically the approach of the appellate authority is correct and only on account of change of forum it does not get a jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against the order exercised by the appellate authority which was vested with the power prior to amendment. However, from the impugned order (Annexure-7) it - 3 - is apparent that before terminating the services of the petitioner, he was not noticed and heard and, therefore, the petitioner rightly moved the appellate authority who is now vested with the power of appeal for consideration of his case. Normally, against the order of the appellate authority passed under Rule 18 of the Rules, a writ will lie in this Court. As it is more convenient for the appellate authority at the district level to call for the record, examine the same and hear the parties in the matter and decide the issue, it is appropriate that this matter be considered and decided on merits by the appellate authority now constituted under the Rules as per amendment. The matter is, therefore, remitted back to the Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Saharsa for consideration of the grievance of the petitioner on merit and, it is directed that, after making necessary enquiry, by examining the records and hearing the parties and after due notice to the persons who had moved earlier before the Block Development Officer and in whose favour Annexure-7 was passed, he shall decide the matter. For this purpose, Annexure-7, the order of the - 4 - then Block Development Officer dated 31.7.2007 and the order of the appellate authority dated 2.3.2009 shall be treated as set aside by this Court. However, the petitioner will not make any claim of benefits of his services till the appeal is finally decided by the appellate authority. The appellate authority shall make all endeavours to decide the appeal within the statutory period provided law. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ application is disposed of. B.T (J.N. Singh, J.)