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.)