IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.710 of 2010
1. KIRAN KUMARI D/O SRI RADHIKA HARIZAN R/O
BADDI VISHAHAR, P.S.BARAHAT,DISTT-BANKA
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR , THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
2. THE DISTRICT TEACHERS APPOINTMENT
APPELLATE AUTHORITY BANKA THROUGH ITS
CHAIRMAN
3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BANKA
4. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER KATORIA, P.S.
KATORIA, DISTT-BANKA
5. THE MUKHIYA OF GRAM PANCHAYATI RAJ MANIYA,
P.S.KATORIYA,DISTT-BANKA
6. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY OF THE GRAM
PANCHAYAT RAJ MANIYA, P.S.KATORIYA,DISTT-
BANKA
7. MR. AJEET KUMAR SINGH S/O SRI SHALIGRAM
SINGH R/O VILL +P.O.RANGHATTA, P.S. KATORIYA,
DISTT-BANKA
with
CWJC No.745 of 2010
1. HARISH KUMAR MADHUKAR S/O SRI SUKDEO
PANDIT R/O VILL KARHARIA,P.O.+P.S.+DISTT-BANKA
2. HEERALAL SONA S/O SRI VIRENDRA KUMAR VEER
R/O VILL +P.O.KATORIA, P.S.KATORIA,DISTT-BANKA
3. DAMAYANTI KUMARI D/O RAMASHISH RAI R/O
RANYODHA, P.S.DHORAIYA,DISTT-BANKA
4. VINITA KUMARI D/O SRI VISHWANTH BHAGAT R/O
VILL JANDAHA, P.S.KATORIA, DISTT-BANKA
5. USHA KUMARI D/O SRI AMBIKA RAUT R/O MOH
ISHAK CHAK, P.S.ISHAK CHAK,DISTT-BHAGALPUR
6. RANJIT KUMAR S/O SRI BINDESHWARI PRASAD
SINGH R/O VILL RASIDPUR,P.S.BATH, DISTT-
BHAGALPUR
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT GOVT.OF BIHAR, PATNA
2. THE DISTRICT TEACHERS APPOINTMENT
APPELLATE AUTHORITY BANKA THROUGH ITS
CHAIRMAN
3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BANKA
4. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER KATORIA, P.S.
KATORIA, DISTT-BANKA
5. THE MUKHIYA OF GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ
MANIA,P.S.KATORIYA, DISTT-BANKA
2
6. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY OF GRAM
PANCHAYAT RAJ MONIA, P.S.KATORIYA, DISTT-
BANKA
7. MR. AJEET KUMAR SINGH S/O SRI SHALIGRAM
SINGH R/O VILL +P.O. RANGHATTA, PS.KATORIYA,
DISTT-BANKA
with
CWJC No.1959 of 2010
1. SMT.RANJANA KUMARI W/O SHRI AJIT KUMAR
SINGH R/O MOH-RANGHATTA, PS- KATORIA, BLOCK
KATORIA, DISTT- BANKA
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY CUM COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT BIHAR, VIKASH
BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA
2. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, BIHAR,
PATNA
3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BANKA
4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION,
BANKA
5. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, BANKA
6. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
KATORIA,BANKA
7. THE MUKHIYA, MANIA PANCHAYAT, BLOCK
KATORIA, DISTT- BANKA
8. THE PANCHAYAT SEVAK, MANIA PANCHAYAT,
BLOCK KATORIA, DISTT- BANKA
-----------
4 27.8.2010 C.W.J.C.No. 710 and C.W.J.C.No. 745 both of 2010
are by Panchayat Teachers, who are duly selected and appointed,
whose appointments have been cancelled by the order of District
Teacher Appointment Appellate Authority, Banka in Case no.
610/13.05.2009 and 708/18.07.2009. C.W.J.C.No.1959 of 2010
is by one Smt. Ranjana Kumari for implementation of the
aforesaid order of the tribunal.
Heard Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned Senior
Counsel, in support of first two writ petitions in which Mr. S.D.
3
Sanjay ,learned counsel, opposed the writ petitions and Mr. S.D.
Sanjay, learned counsel appearing in support of third writ
partition is opposed by Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh.
The facts are lie in a very narrow compass.
Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned Senior Counsel
for the petitioners in first two writ petitions submits that the
order of the tribunal is not sustainable on several grounds
primarily first that the complainant before the tribunal has no
locus standi to move an application, secondly the application
was filed beyond the time prescribed and thirdly the tribunal has
passed order without notice and without hearing the affected
parties.
On the other hand, Mr. S.D. Sanjay, submits that the
whole selection process being vitiated, any person could have
brought this fact to the notice of the tribunal. He submits that
because of gross irregularity committed in the selection, the
tribunal rightly interfered and this Court should not interfere in
the matter. So far as third writ petition is concerned, the
consequence would depend upon the result of first two writ
petitions.
Having heard the parties and considered the matter,
in my view, the first two writ petitions must succeed. Firstly they
must succeed on the third ground that affected parties are not
heard. It is elementary principle of law that no order can be
passed against a person adverse to him without granting him
4
opportunity of hearing. It must be remembered that the tribunal,
so constituted, is a quasi judicial function and has to comply
with principle of natural justice. Thus, the order of the tribunal
being in violation of principle of natural justice cannot be
upheld and has to be quashed.
In view of the findings, as aforesaid, it is not
necessary for me to decide the other issues though I may brought
notice the same because of ultimate order I propose to pass.
Apart from other issue, Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh submits that
the complainant before the tribunal had no locus standi to
maintain the action. Mr. S.D. Sanjay submits to the contrary ,
though admits, that the applicant before the tribunal was the
husband of one of the aspirants to the post of Panchayat Teacher
and not the applicant herself. This is a question of locus standi
to maintain a complaint.
I may here notice that the tribunal has been
constituted under rule 28 of the Bihar Primary Panchayat
Teachers (Appointment and Service Condition)Rules, 2006. It is
thus a tribunal of limited jurisdiction. It has no inherent power to
entertain public petition. It relates to matters of appointment and
service condition. Thus before a person can move the tribunal or
the tribunal entertain a complaint, it must be shown that the
complainant has locus standi. This matter which the tribunal
would be required to examine. The other important aspect is
with regard to limitation . Under rule 18 , as was originally
5
enacted, a complaint has to be filed before the BDO and it was
specifically provided that such a complaint had to be filed
within thirty days . The period of thirty days was not extendable.
Thus, Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh submits that the complainant
even if he has locus standi had to move the application within
thirty days and not after three years of the selection process.
In view of the findings given by this Court in respect
of the first issue, it is necessary to set aside the order of the
tribunal and remand the matter to the tribunal for fresh
consideration on all aspects that may be raised including those
noted above after due notice to all the parties
So far as petitioners in first two writ petitions are
concerned, no notice is required to be issued to them as they are
aware of the order passed by this Court and it is their
responsibility to serve a copy of this order to the tribunal and
request for fixing a date for re-initiating the proceeding.
As the matter relates to recruitment of the year
2006, the tribunal should decide the matter at an early date
preferably within a period of three months from the date of
production of a copy of this order before the tribunal.
In view of order passed in first two writ petitions, no
order need be passed in third writ application.
With the aforesaid observations and directions all
these three writ applications are disposed of.
( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)
singh