IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1136 of 2008 Gyanendra Kumar, son of Late Ram Briksha Singh, resident of village Hasanpur, P.s. Pipra and District- East Champaran ………… Petitioner Versus 1.The State Of Bihar 2.The Collector, East Champaran, Motihari 3.The District Superintendent of Education, East Champaran 4.The Block Development Officer, Chakiya, East Champaran 5.The Block Education Extension Officer, Chakiya, East Champaran 6.The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Kuarpur, East Champaran 7.The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Kuarpur, East Champaran 8.Vishal Pratap Singh, son of Sri Nagendra Singh, resident of village Parsurampur, P.s. Pipra, District- East Champaran 9.Bhushan Kumar Singh, son of Shambhu Singh, resident of village Rudal Pakri, P.S. Pipra Kothi, District- East Champaran …………….. Respondents ----------- 2. 07/09/2010 Learned counsels agree that the Appellate Authorities constituted by the State Government under Rule 18 of the Bihar Panchayat Prarambhik Shikshak (Niyojan Avam Seva Sart) Niyamvali, 2006 (as amended by Amendment Act, 2008) are now functional and hence an efficacious alternative forums is available to the petitioner and others for consideration of all their grievances in respect of their employment. In the circumstances, the writ application is disposed of with liberty to the 2 petitioner to file an appropriate appeal before the concerned Appellate Authority, if not already filed, for redressal of his grievances. In case such an appeal is filed by the petitioner within one month, the Appellate Authority shall consider the same and all documents enclosed therewith, including orders of this Court in identical matters, if produced, and other relevant records and make all endeavours to dispose of the same on merits in reference to the original records after hearing the parties concerned by a speaking order, preferably within the time prescribed under the Rules for the purpose, without going into the question of limitation. No order of any authority, passed earlier in terms of Rule 18, as it stood prior to amendment, shall be treated as impediment in consideration of the matter on merits. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the merits of the claim of the petitioner. Pradeep/ ( J. N. Singh,J.)