IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11150 of 2008 MUNNA PRASAD, SON OF SRI KAMTA PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-BANDIPUR, P.S. RAMGARH, DISTRICT-KAIMUR (BHABHUA)……………………………………………...PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KAIMUR(BHABHUA). 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, CUM DISTRICT PROGRAMME CO-ORDINATOR, BIHAR EDUCATION PROJECT, KAIMUR(BHABHUA). 5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, RAMGARH, P.S. RAMGARH, DISTRICT-KAIMUR (BHABHUA). 6. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, RAMGARH, P.S. RAMGARH, DISTRICT- KAIMUR(BHABHUA). 7. THE MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, BARAURA, P.S. RAMGARH, DISTRICT-KAIMUR (BHABHUA). 8. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, BARAURA, P.S. RAMGARH, DISTRICT-KAIMUR (BHABHUA). 9. MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA, SON OF SRI SHIV MANDIR SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE+P.O.-TORANI, P.S. SHEOSAGAR, DISTRICT-ROHTAS(SASARAM). ……………………………………………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Petitioner : M/s. Tej Bahadur Singh, Sr. Advocate, Yogendra Kumar, Manish Kumar and R.N. Roy, Advocates. For the Respondent No.9 : M/s. Ambar Nath Banerjee & Bishwanath Choudhary, Advocates. For the Respondent No.7 : Dharmesh Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Anant Kumar Bhaskar, AC to SC-II. --------- 2 5. 7.3.2011. The petitioner seeks quashing of Annexure-‘12’ to the writ application, whereby his appointment at the post of Panchayat Teacher has been cancelled and has also challenged Annexure-‘13’ to the writ application, whereby one Manoj Kumar Sharma, has been appointed even prior to his termination as claimed by the petitioner. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that against his termination and such appointment, an application was filed under Rule 18 of the Bihar Panchayat Parambhik Shikshak (Niyojan Avam Seva Sart) Niyamavali, 2006 on 19.11.2007 upon which the report was submitted by the Block Development Officer, Ramgarh, District-Kaimur, to the District Superintendent of Education, Kaimur, wherein he has taken a stand in favour of the petitioner. However, in place of taking a decision, he has requested the District Superintendent of Education to take a decision. It is a common ground that upon an application filed under Rule 18 of the aforesaid Rules by the petitioner, no decision could be taken and in the meantime, in the year 2008, the appellate tribunal has been constituted in terms of 3 the amended Rules of the year 2008. It is jointly submitted that alternative remedy is available before the appellate tribunal as no decision was taken under the earlier Rule 18. In the above view of the matter, the petitioner is permitted to take recourse of the aforesaid alternative remedy by filing an appeal before the appellate tribunal. If such appeal is filed within eight weeks by the petitioner from today, then the appellate tribunal shall consider the appeal on its own merit in accordance with law within the time prescribed under the Rules. This order has been passed in presence of the Respondent No.9. This writ application stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid observations and directions. P.S. ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)