IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.12006 of 2010
1. RAJAN KUMAR S/O SRI AMRENDRA PRASAD VILLAGE AND
P.O.- KAIRIYA, P.S.- KAHALGAON, DISTT.- BHAGALPUR
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN
RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA
3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BHAGALPUR
4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, BHAGALPUR
5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, KAHALGAON, DISTT.-
BHAGALPUR
6. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER KAHALGAON,
DISTT.- BHAGALPUR
7. THE MEMBER, DISTRICT TEACHER'S APPOINTMENT
APPELLATE AUTHORITY, BHAGALPUR
8. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KAHALGAON, BHAGALPUR
-----------
2 9.12.2010 After having heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned counsel for the State including I.A. No.
10083 of 2010, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
matter can be disposed of finally at this juncture itself looking at
the nature of the dispute which has been raised by learned counsel
for the petitioner.
First contention of the petitioner is that his service
has been terminated pursuant to the decision given by the District
Employment Appellate Authority in terms of annexure-6 without
holding or declaring in any manner the appointment of the wife of
the petitioner was in any manner illegal.
Petitioner’s wife was appointed as Panchayat
Shikshak and on her death, the present petitioner got benefit of
compassionate appointment. Since no finding has been given
therefore he could not be terminated.
Second objection taken is that the Appellate
Authority has no jurisdiction to exercise power in absence of any
-2-
decision having been taken by the Block Development Officer in
relation to the employment in question because the forum is of
appeal having appellate jurisdiction.
In the opinion of this Court both the issues can be
looked into by the Appellate Authority if the petitioner moves the
Appellate Authority by virtue of the order of this Court. To some
extent the petitioner is correct in saying that there is no discussion
with regard to the appointment of his wife and therefore he could
not be condemned unheard or any finding having been recorded
with regard to the validity of such appointment.
This Court intentionally refrains from recording
any opinion on the merit of the order dated 9.6.2010 in view of the
fact that the issue is being remanded back.
If the petitioner moves the Appellate Authority, the
Appellate Authority will render its opinion in relation to the
appointment of the wife of the petitioner as well as the question of
law having been raised that in absence of any adjudication by the
B.D.O. the Appellate Authority has no jurisdiction to exercise.
The Court expects an early decision in this regard.
This writ application is disposed of with the above
direction.
RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)