IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3698 of 2010 1. MUSSARRAT ARANAJ @MUSSRRAT ARANAJ D/O MD. MOTIUR RAHMAN R/O VILL.- MOQURRI BASTI, P.S.- KURLI CORT, DISTT.- KISHANGANJ Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPTT. OF HUMAN RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION KISHANGANJ 5. THE MEMBER, DISTRICT TEACHERS EMPLOYMENT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KISHANGANJ 6. THE BLOCK EDUCATION AND EXTENSION OFFICER THAKURGANJ, KISHANGANJ 7. THE MUKHIYA, KANAKPUR GRAM PANCHAYAT THAKURGANJ, KISHANGANJ 8. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, KANAKPUR GRAM PANCHAYAT THAKURGANJ, KISHANGANJ 9. MD. MUSLIM MD. RUSTAM ALI R/O VILL.- JALMILIK, P.S.- THAKURGANJ, DISTT.- KISHANGANJ ----------- 2 8.9.2010 The petitioner challenges the order of District Teacher Appointment Appellate Authority, Kishanganj in Appeal no. 645 dated 14.1.2010 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition).By the said order, petitioner’s appointment , made in the year 2005 as Shiksha Mitra, has been set aside and that too without notice to the petitioner and without making the petitioner as a party. . Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of this Court in the case of Alok Kumar & ors –v- State of Bihar & ors. Since reported in 2009(2)PLJR 929 and submits that the petitioner was selected as Shiksha Mitra in the 2 year 2005.The notification itself provided for objection to be filed within the stipulated period. The appointment of Shiksha Mitra was on contractual basis for a fixed time. By virtue of Bihar Primary Panchayat Teacher (Appointment and Service Condition) Rules, 2006, all working Shiksha Mitras were absorbed as Panchayat Teachers and the post of Shiksha Mitra was abolished. Under this rule, 2006 there was a statutory forum to raise the grievance. It is for the first time, in 2009 that the present appeal is being filed before the tribunal. I may notice here that in view of the Government notification no. 3716, dated 23.10.2008 by which the tribunal was constituted it is clearly specified therein that the tribunal was competent to entertain complaint within thirty days of cause of action but in view of the order being passed I am not persuaded to go into this question because it is open to the tribunal to look into and decide. It is clear from the order, in question, that the order was passed as against the petitioner without the petitioner being made a party or without notice to the petitioner. This is a gross violation of principle of natural justice. That renders the order to be void ab initio. The impugned order, as contained in Annexure 6 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the tribunal with a direction to proceed with the matter. It would first make petitioner as a party , issue notice to her and after hearing her would decide the matter in accordance with law . The 3 consequential order terminating the petitioner would also stand set aside and the petitioner would be deemed to be continuing in service. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. singh ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)