IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10350 of 2011 Sangita Kumari, D/o Sri Parshuram Dubey, R/o Village Allipur, P.O. Dhav Pokhar, P.S. Sonhan ,Distt. Kaimur-------------------------------------petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Department Bihar Patna 3. The Director , Primary Education, Bihar Patna 4. The District Magistrate , Sasaram 5. The District Superintendent of Edcuation, Rohtas 6. The Block Education Extension Officer, Shivsagar, Rohtas 7. The Mukhia Sikraur Gram Panchayat, Shivsagar, Rohtas 8. The Panchayat Sachiv, Sikraur Gram Panchayat, Shivsagar, Rohtas 9. The Member , District Teacher Appointment Appellate Tribunal, Rohtas, Sasaram 10. Tinku Kumar Singh S/o Sri Rajendra Pd. Singh, R/o village Karanpur, P.O. Pia P.S. Kundra, Distt. Kaimur---------------------------------respondents ---------------------------------- For the petitioner :M/S Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey, Ramanuj Tiwary, Advocates For the State :Mr.S.Raza Ahmad, AAG IX Mr.Vishwambhar Prasad, AC to AAG IX -------- 5 02.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 21.6.2011 passed by respondent No.9, the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Rohtas, Sasaram by which it has directed the appointment of respondent No.10 on the post which was occupied either by the petitioner or by one Pratima Kumari whoever had lesser marks. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order has been passed in violation of the 2 principles of natural justice as neither any notice was issued or served upon the petitioner nor the petitioner was provided an opportunity of hearing before the Appellate Authority. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State it is stated that the petitioner had been heard by the Appellate Authority but no material has been brought in support of the same as had been specifically directed by the order of this Court earlier. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reference to Niyojit Mahila is to one Durgawati who was a trained candidate and whose appointment is not under challenge but had been made on a particular roster point which was being considered by the Appellate Authority while hearing the matter. In support of the same learned counsel refers to the entire order-sheet of the case. From the same it is evident that at no stage the petitioner was issued a notice nor does it appear that the petitioner had appeared in the matter and argued the case although there is reference to Durgawati in the order dated 21.6.2011. In view of the specific stand taken by the 3 petitioner which has not been countered either by the State by producing any material on the record or by the respondent No.10 who was duly noticed in the matter and there being nothing in the order-sheet of the case in support of the bare assertion of the State that the petitioner has been heard, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 21.6.2011 cannot stand as it has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is, accordingly, quashed. The writ application is thus allowed and the matter is remitted to the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Rohtas, Sasaram for re-hearing the matter and passing an order afresh after hearing all the affected parties. Spal/ (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)