IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.7247 of 2010
1. KUMARI NIRMALA @ KUMARI NIRMALA SINHA D/O
RAMASHISH SINGH R/O VILL.+P.O.- NAUNI, P.S.-
CHANDRADEEP, DISTT.- JAMUI.
2. DRAUPDI SINHA D/O SIYASARAN SINGH R/O VILL.+P.O.-
NAUNI, P.S.- CHANDRADEEP, DISTT.- JAMUI
3. JAI PRAKASH YADAV S/O SHUKHDEO YADAV R/O VILL.-
SAPO, P.O.- NONI, P.S.- CHANDRADEEP, DISTT.- JAMUI
4. NARESH PANDEY S/O BACHHU PANDEY R/O VILL.- SAPO,
P.O.- NONI, P.S.- CHANDRADEEP, DISTT.- JAMUI
5. MANORAMA KUMARI D/O NAND KISHORE PRASAD SINGH
R/O VILL.- BARA, P.O.- BARASOLAHPUR, P.S.-
CHANDRADEEP, DISTT.- JAMUI
6. BANDANA KUMARI W/O SANJAY SINGH R/O VILL.+P.O.-
NAUNI, P.S.- CHANDRADEEP, DISTT.- JAMUI
7. KAUSHAILENDRA KUMAR S/O RAM SWAROOP YADAV R/O
VILL.- SAPO, P.O.- NONI, P.S.- CHANDRADEEP, DISTT.- JAMUI
8. RUBI KUMARI D/O RAM SHARAN YADAV R/O VILL.- SAPO,
P.O.- NONI, P.S.- CHANDRADEEP, DISTT.- JAMUI
9. RAMPRIT KUMAR S/O PRAKASH MEHTA R/O VILL.-
GONDAPUR, P.O.+P.S.+DISTT.- NAWADA
10. ANURADHA KUMARI D/O LAL KISHORE CHAUDHARY R/O
VILL.- TAJPUR, P.O.- BARASOLAHPUR, P.S.- CHANDRADEEP,
DISTT.- JAMUI
11. ARCHANA KUMARI D/O LAL KISHORE CHAUDHARY R/O
VILL.- TAJPUR, P.O.- BARASOLAHPUR, P.S.- CHANDRADEEP,
DISTT.- JAMUI
12. KUMARI ASHA SINHA D/O BHIM YADAV R/O VILL.-
CHATIYANI, P.O.- LOHANA, P.S.- CHANDRADEEP, DISTT.-
JAMUI
13. PARSURAM YADAV S/O NARAYAN YADAV R/O VILL.+P.O.-
SAHODA, P.S.- CHANDRADEEP, DISTT.- JAMUI
14. JUNG BAHADUR SINGH S/O KAILASH PANDIT R/O VILL.-
KOLHANA, P.O.- SEWE, P.S.- CHANDRADEEP, DISTT.- JAMUI
15. MANOJ KUMAR S/O KRISHNA RABIDAS R/O VILL.- BARA,
P.O.- BARASOLAHPUR, P.S.- CHANDRADEEP, DISTT.- JAMUI
16. YAMUNA KUMARI D/O ASHOK KUMAR R/O VILL.- BAJITPUR,
P.O.- MAHAPUR, P.S.- KAUWAKOL, DISTT.- NAWADA
17. ARUN KUMAR S/O DEO NANDAN YADAV R/O AKBARPUR,
P.O.- CHAUDARGAH, P.S.- ARIYARI, DISTT.- SHEIKHPURA
18. JATAN PRASAD S/O GENAURI RAUT R/O VILL.- SAPO, P.O.-
NONI, P.S.- CHANDRADEEP, DISTT.- JAMUI.
VERSUS
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN
RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
3. DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, JAMUI
-2-
5. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, JAMUI
CUM DISTRICT PROGRAMME CO-ORDINATOR, BIHAR
EDUCATION PROJECT, JAMUI
6. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, ISLAM NAGAR ALIGANJ
BLOCK, JAMUI
7. BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, ISLAM NAGAR,
ALIGANJ BLOCK, JAMUI
8. NIRANJAN SINGH S/O RAJO SINGH MUKHIYA, GRAM
PANCHAYAT RAJ KOLHANA, ALIGANJ BLOCK, JAMUI
9. AWADHESH KUMAR SINGH S/O NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONER PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT
RAJ KOLHANA, ALIGANJ BLOCK, JAMUI
10. NARESH KUMAR SINGH S/O NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONER MEMBER, DISTRICT TEACHER APPOINTMENT
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAMUI.
-----------
For the Petitioners :M/s-Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey & Anshuman, Advocates.
For the State : SC (12)
For the Respondent No.8 : M/s Basant Choudhary, Sr. Adv. & Arun Kumar.
————
06 28.09.2010 Upon notice the respondent-Mukhiya on whose
instance proceedings were taken up has appeared and filed counter
affidavit, with consent of parties, the writ petition is being disposed of
at this stage itself.
By this writ application, eighteen petitioners challenge
the order dated 29.03.2010 passed by the District Teacher
Appointment Appellate Tribunal, Jamui in Case No.12 of 2009. By
this order, the Tribunal has held that the appointments as made in
Gram Panchayat Raj Kolhana, Aliganj Block, Jamui as Panchayat
Teachers stood vitiated and, as such, the appointments of the
petitioners were ordered to be cancelled.
It is not in dispute that the petitioners were selected and
appointed in 2006 and have been working since then. Their
appointments were made under Bihar Primary Panchayat Teachers
(Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006. While assailing
-3-
the order, the first ground that is taken is that the proceedings before
the Tribunal were initiated almost three years after the initial
appointment. It does so appear for the simple reason that the Tribunal
itself was constituted towards the end of the 2008. The Tribunal refers
to a letter of the Block Development Officer, Aliganj forwarding the
matter to the Tribunal that there is something seriously wrong with
that because the letter is dated 10.06.2007 when the B.D.O. was
himself exercising the jurisdiction and there was no provision for the
Tribunal at all. The 2006 Rules were amended and, in particular,
Rule-18 was amended in the year 2008 whereby the B.D.O. was
replaced by the Tribunal. Thus, the Tribunal was wrong in saying that
the matter was referred to it by the B.D.O. in the year 2007, apparently
it has been done only to save the limitation. It does not be hoped of
the Tribunal to look facts to assume jurisdiction.
Be that as it may, I do not rest my order on the said
fact. It is then urged that the Tribunal as constituted under Rule-18 is
a Tribunal of limited jurisdiction. That being so, its jurisdiction would
be limited to the complaint as filed before it.
It is submitted that the Tribunal cannot take upon itself
the role of an investigative agency to scrutinize as if everything was
correctly and validly done or not. It is a Tribunal to decide the
complaint. It is a Tribunal to decide the grievance. It cannot travel
beyond it. The grievance is that the complaint petitions, the records
which the Tribunal called for, none of them were disclosed to the
petitioners. Petitioners were simply asked to answer certain questions
-4-
put by the Tribunal and file their explanations. This, in my view, is
not sufficient compliance of fair justice and principles of natural
justice. Let it be noted that the Tribunal is a quasi judicial Tribunal
and decides inter-party disputes. It must act impartially and in
consonance with the principles of natural justice. This requires that
every chit of paper on which the Tribunal seeks to rely must be made
available to all the parties. The Tribunal cannot travel beyond the
complaint. It cannot start investigating into facts which are neither
alleged nor brought on record.
Thus seen, in the present case, it is obvious that the
Tribunal did not conduct itself in a manner appropriate to a quasi
judicial body. Thus, on this ground alone, the order of the Tribunal
has to be set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh
consideration, after notice to all the parties and after giving the parties
copies of all documents, reports and communications which the
Tribunal seeks to use in the proceedings. Therefore, the order of the
Tribunal, as impugned (Anneuxre-7), is set aside. Needless to say that
as the petitioners were selected and appointed for the period they have
worked, they would be entitled to their remuneration which the
Tribunal would ensure.
Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)