IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.11568 of 2010
1. LATA KUMARI D/O SRI DINESH JHA R/O MOHALLA-
KABILPUR (LAHERIASARAI), P.S.- BALBHADRAPUR,
DISTT.- DARBHANGA
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION HUMAN
RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR,
PATNA
3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, DARBHANGA
4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION,
DARBHANGA
5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, HAYAGHAT,
DISTT.- DARBHANGA
6. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER
HAYAGHAT, DARBHANGA
7. THE MEMBER, DISTRICT TEACHER EMPLOYMENT
TRIBUNAL, DARBHANGA
8. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT
RAJ, CHANDANPATTI, DARBHANGA
9. MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, CHANDANPATTI,
DARBHANGA
10. PRIYANKA KUMARI W/O SRI KUMAR RAKESH
PRESENTLY POSTED AS PANCHAYAT TEACHER,
PRIMARY SCHOOL, HAZIPUR, HAYAGHAT,
DARBHANGA
11. MADHU KUMARI W/O SRI SHIV SUNDAR
CHAUDHARY R/O VILLAGE + P.O.- PANDASARAI
(LAHERIASARAI), P.S.- LAHERIASARAI, DISTT.-
DARBHANGA
-----------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Satish Chandra Jha-3
For the State : A.A.G.11
2 13.8.2010 The petitioner challenges the order passed by the
District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority,
Lahesriasarai. District- Darbhanga in Appeal Case no. 470 of
2009 being order dated 6.7.2010
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the State , in view of the facts, which stands
admitted, with their consent this case is being disposed of at this
2
stage itself.
The petitioner was duly selected and appointed as
Panchayat Teacher in the year 2007. One Madhu Kumari
challenged her selection first before the Block Development
Officer, who in terms of rule 18 of the Bihar Primary Panchayat
Teacher (Appointment and Service of Condition) Rules, 2006 is
the statutory authority to receive the complaint. Block
Development Officer enquired into the matter and dismissed her
complaint. The said Madhu Kumari then upon the Block
Development Officer being replaced by the tribunal in the year
2009 filed the present appeal before the tribunal as also
application before the Lokayukta , Bihar complaining about the
same . The tribunal heard the matter and after examining the
matter , by order dated 30.11.2008 dismissed her complaint
once again though in the opinion of the Court the tribunal could
not have entertained the complaint at all because it had earlier
been dealt with by the Block Development Officer, who was the
authority under Section 18 of the rules prior to the tribunal.
Then pursuant to complaint, as made before the Lokayukta ,
office of Lokayukta asked the District Magistrate to enquire into
the matter . The District Magistrate enquired into the matter and
submitted a report that the selection of the petitioner was proper.
Office of Lokayukta directed the tribunal to re-open the matter
and re-hear the matter. It is pursuant to that the tribunal has
reviewed its order and passed order dated 6.7.2010 by which
3
the tribunal has now cancelled the appointment of the petitioner
and directed one Priyanka Kumari, who was not even the
applicant before the tribunal to be reinstated in place of the
petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
order of the tribunal itself is a final order . It is not subject to
appeal or superintendence of any authority being a statutory
quasi judicial authority except by way of superintendence by this
Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
He further submits that the tribunal being a statutory quasi
judicial authority had no power of review. Thus on both the
counts the impugned order is wholly without jurisdiction.
Having considered the matter, in my view, the
submissions, as made by learned counsel for the petitioner, are
correct. Once the tribunal decided the matter it become functous
officio. It is a statutory quasi judicial tribunal. No appeal or
review is provided against the order of the tribunal nor the
tribunal being conferred with power of review. Thus, the order
of the tribunal is final subject to judicial review by this Court
and not by any other authority. In this connection I may refer to
notification no. 3716, dated 23.10.2008 issued by the department
of Human Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, wherein
having constituted the tribunal, the State Government provided
for various functions and matter related to the tribunal. In the
said notification, it is clearly pointed out that under clause
4
Kh(xv) that the order passed by the tribunal is final and is not
appeal-able before any authority. That being the position, the
tribunal having decided the matter, it could not be reviewed by
the tribunal except by this Court upon remand to reconsider the
matter. The second point is also well taken that the tribunal
being a statutory quasi judicial authority. It is well settled that
substantive review is a power that can be conferred only by
statute and in absence thereof there is no power of review. This
matter has been dealt with by the Apex Court in the case of
Grindlays Bank Ltd., -v- The Central Government
Industrial Tribunal & ors. Since reported in AIR 1981 SC
606 and in particular para 13 thereof. That being so, the
impugned order of the tribunal dated 6.7.2010 passed on review
in Case no. 470 of 2009, as aforesaid, is set aside.
The writ application is accordingly allowed.
( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)
singh