High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Bhupendra Rai @ Bhupnedra Roy vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 27 January, 2011

Patna High Court – Orders
Bhupendra Rai @ Bhupnedra Roy vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 27 January, 2011
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                        CWJC No.1078 of 2011
                  BHUPENDRA RAI @ BHUPNEDRA RAY, son of late Ram Bachchan
                  Rai, resident of village Sira, PO - Seotar, P.S. Atri, District - Gaya.
                                                      Versus
                  1. THE STATE OF BIHAR.
                  2. The Collector, District - Nawada.
                  3. The District Teacher Appointment Appellate Authority, Nawada,
                     Bihar.
                  4. The District Superintendent of Education, District - Nawada.
                  5. The Block Education Extension Officer, Warisganj Block, District -
                     Nawada.
                  6. The Panchayat Sevak, Gram Panchayat Dosut, P.S. Warisaliganj,
                     District - Nawada.
                  7. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Dosut, Block Warisaliganj, P.S.
                     Warisaliganj, District - Nawada.
                  8. The Head Master, Nav Srijit Primary School, Jiyapur, P.S.
                     Warisaliganj, District - Nawada.
                  9. Smt. Kumkum Kumari, D/O Sri Narendra Prasad Singh, resident of
                     village Dumri, P.O. Sundari Dumri, P.S. Pakaribarawan, District -
                     Nawada.
                                                  -----------

02. 27.1.2011 One of the primary contention at the bar on behalf of the

petitioner is that the impugned order contained in Annexure-8 dated

18.12.2010 has been passed by the District Teachers Employment

Appellate Authority, Nawada without any notice or hearing or right of

hearing has been afforded to the petitioner when the fall out of the said

decision is on the petitioner.

If what has been stated by the petitioner is correct, then it is

a serious issue because no authority much less a quasi judicial authority

ought to decide a matter detrimental to the interest of a person without

hearing or noticing him. Annexure-8 therefore is quashed.

Matter is remitted back to the appellate authority with a

direction that he will hear the petitioner afresh and pass an appropriate

order after hearing.

This is however subject to verification of the record on this
2

issue at the level of the appellate authority.

The writ application is disposed of with above observation.

rkp                              ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)