Order Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. In this case, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 27th April 2011 passed in Appeal No. 58 of 2009 by the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Madhepura. 3. Order of Appellate Authority dated 27th April 2011 (Annexure-1) is in the shape of enquiry report, not in the shape of any order passed by the Appellate Authority. 4. It appears that a proceeding before the Appellate Authority started on the basis of letter dated 3rd March 2011 of District Superintendent of Education stating therein that the Hon’ble Lokayukta, Bihar Patna has asked the enquiry report on the allegation raised by one Bharti Kumari and one Kamlesh Kumar Mehta whereupon the case was registered by the District Teacher Appellate Authority, heard the parties, giving liberty to the parties to place their cases after that, it was found that the petitioner has wrongly been appointed against the post, as per the roster, was not meant for the petitioner and the enquiry report has been submitted for appropriate action. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the Section 7(1)(b) of the Bihar Lokayukta Act, 1973, the Lokayukta should not have entertained the complaint, as the word that has been used in the Section 7 of the said Act which provides that if the remedy was available to the petitioner, the Lokayukta should not entertain the complaint with regard to his employment, the proviso can be pressed in service in an exceptional circumstance. He has further submitted that the petitioner was appointed in May 2005 for the first time for eleven months and thereafter, the service of petitioner was extended on 28.4.2006 and later on he, after enforcement of Bihar Raj Panchayat Elementary Teachers (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules 2006 (herein after mentioned as Service Rule), was converted a Panchayat Teacher in view of Section 20(iii) of the said Rules. He has further submitted that the second appointment was a fresh and independent appointment; whatever the illegality was there in the first appointment cannot be taken into consideration while testing second appointment made on 28.04.2006. He has further submitted that neither the first appointment nor the second appointment of the petitioner was ever challenged by any person aggrieved till 2008. He has further submitted that the second appointment was a fresh and independent appointment; whatever the illegality was there in the first appointment cannot be taken into consideration while testing second appointment made on 28.04.2006. He has further submitted that neither the first appointment nor the second appointment of the petitioner was ever challenged by any person aggrieved till 2008. For the first time the complaint was filed to the Lokayukta which was remitted and registered as present case. Similar complaint was filed before the Chief Minister’s Janta Darbar. The matter, which was received from the said Janta Darbar, was placed before the Block Development Officer who after examination, did not find any illegality in the appointment made in the Panchayat in question. 6. He has further submitted, the Appellate Authority should not have conducted enquiry and remitted his enquiry report to the Lokayukta rather he himself should have decided the issue one way or other. The manner, enquiry has been conducted and report has been submitted is completely dehors to the provision of Bihar Raj Panchayat Elementary Teacher (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006. He has further submitted that though he has received the notice, he has produced the document but he was not given any oral hearing and not considered documents which were produced by the petitioner. 7. Counsel for the State, so far referring the matter by the Lokayukta, has accepted the argument of the petitioner and submitted that the Lokayukta has no jurisdiction to entertain such a complaint, as per the word that has been couched in the Section 7 of the Bihar Lokayukta Act, 1973. He has further submitted that the enquiry report should be treated as a final judgment of the Appellate Authority and on reading of the judgment, which has been shown as an enquiry report, makes it very clear that the appointment of the petitioner is per se illegal as he has been appointed as Panchayat teacher at the roster point which was meant for other category of persons. 8. 8. It will be relevant to quote Section 7 of the aforesaid Act, is as follows:- (i) Except as herein after provided, the Lokayukta shall not conduct any investigation under this Act in the case of complaint involving a grievance in respect of any action – (a) If such action relate to any matter specified in the Third Schedule; or (b) If the complaint has or had any remedy by way of proceedings before any tribunal or court of law: Provided that the Lokayukta may conduct an investigation notwithstanding that the complaint had or has such a remedy if he is satisfied that such person could not or cannot for sufficient cause have recourse to such remedy. 9. On analysis of aforesaid sections it is clear, the Lokayukta will refuse to entertain application if anther remedy is available. But the Lokayukta can entertain the complaint if he is satisfied the alternative remedy is not sufficient recourse to such dispute. 10. Appellate Authority has been given wide power to adjudication the issues with regard to employment, non-employment, illegal appointment and other connected issues. In view of aforesaid interpretation, it cannot be said, Appellate Authority was/is not proper forum for redressal of grievance of petitioner. 11. It is a fact that the Appellate Tribunal should have decided the case one way or other, treating reference sent by the Lokayukta as a complaint of Bharti Kumari and Kamlesh Kumar Mehta instead of sending the enquiry report to the Lokayukta, Bihar, further while deciding the matter, parties were required to be given full fledged hearing. 12. In this view of the matter, Annexure-1 is quashed and matter is remanded back to the District Employment Appellate Authority, Madhepura to hear and decide this issue in accordance with law. Before deciding the issue, the parties will be given notice and fair opportunity to place their case and after considering the argument and document produced by them, the Authority will decide the case of petitioner. 13. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of.