IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12236 of 2011 ====================================================== Shweta Kumari D/O Sri Arun Kumar Singh, Village-Kosanda, P.S.- Suryapura, District-Rohtas .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The District Teachers Engagement Appellate Tribunal, Bhojpur, Ara 3. The District Superintendent Of Education, Bhojpur 4. The Block Education Extension Officer, Tarari, Bhojpur .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prabhat Bharti For the Respondent/s : Mr. Devendra Kr Sinha AAD-2 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA) 2 22-09-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General No. 2 for the State. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 11.2.2011 passed in Appeal No. 21 by the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Bhojpur, Ara by which the appointment of the petitioner as Block Teacher has been cancelled and in his place direction has been issued to appoint one Sunil Kumar Singh. In the impugned order it is stated that the appellant before the Appellate Authority is a disabled (bone) candidate and the petitioner also belongs to the same category. 2 However, the appellant before the Appellate Authority was a trained candidate having B. Ed. qualification and had appeared for counseling also whereas the petitioner is not trained. For the said reason the direction was issued for cancelling the appointment of the petitioner with a direction to appoint the appellant, Sunil Kumar Singh before the Appellate Authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as no notice was issued or served upon the petitioner nor the petitioner was provided any opportunity of being heard before the impugned order was passed. This Court would have normally remanded the matter back to the Appellate Authority for deciding afresh after providing opportunity to the petitioner but learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to contest the proposition in the order that a trained candidate has to be appointed in preference to an untrained candidate. Under the rules an untrained candidate can only be appointed, if there is no trained candidate available. In the present matter, it is clear that the trained candidate in the same category was available and had also appeared for counseling. Thus, remanding the matter back to 3 the Appellate Authority would be a mere formality as learned counsel is unable to show that there is any other arguable issue which the petitioner can argue against the said order before the Appellate Authority. Normally, this Court insists for compliance of the principles of natural justice but in certain decisions it has been held by the Apex Court and this Court that the application of principles of natural justice is not a mere formality to be observed irrespective of the facts and circumstances involved. If no prejudice can be shown to have been caused to the petitioner on account of violation of the rules of audi alteram partem then the question of remanding the matter back can be of no consequence. In the present matter, in view of the fact that the petitioner does not contest the facts and issues as enumerated in the impugned order, this Court does not consider it a fit case for setting aside the impugned order and sending the matter back to the Appellate Authority for fresh decision. In the above facts and circumstances, the writ application is dismissed. S.Pandey/- (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J)