IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9597 of 2010 1. MD. IFTEKHAR ALAM, S/O MD. SOEB ALAM, R/O VILLAGE CHOKTA, P.S. MOHALGAON,DISTRICT ARARIA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. DIRECTOR,PRIMARY EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR,PATNA. 3. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,ARARIA. 4. MEMBER, DISTRICT TEACHERS EMPLOYMENT APPELLATE AUTHORITY,ARARIA. 5. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER,ARARIA. 6. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, ARARIA. 7. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, JOKI HAT, DISTRICT ARARIA. 8. BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER,JOKIHAT,DISTRICT- ARARIA. 9. MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, PACHIYARI PIPRA, BLOCK AND P.S. JOKIHAT, DISTRICT-ARARIA. 10. PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, PACHIYARI PIPRA, BLOCK AND P.S. JOKIHAT, DISTRICT- ARARIA. with CWJC No.9544 of 2010 1. BHUVNESHWAR BISHWAS S/O NASIB LAL BISHWAS R/O VILL BAIGNA, P.S. MAHALGAON, DISTT-ARARIA 2. MD. RIZWANUL HAQUE S/O MD. AINUL HAQUE R/O VILL BARDENGA, P.S. BAHALGAON, DISTT-ARARIA 3. PRAMOD KUMAR RAJAK S/O GYANAND RAJAK R/O VILL BALWA, P.S. MAHALGAON, DISTT-ARARIA 4. SHANTI DEVI W/O LATE MOHAN LAL RAJAK R/O VILL BALWA, P.S. MAHALGAON, DISTT-ARARIA 5. MD. MAZHARUL HAQUE S/O MD TAIYAB HUSSAIN R/O VILL BALWA, P.S. MAHALGAON, DISTT-ARARIA 6. MD. BASIT ANWAR S/O MD. EKHLAQUE R/O VILL BALWA, P.S. MAHALGAON, DISTT-ARARIA 7. ZEBA RAHMAN D/O MD. SHAFIQUR RAHMAN R/O VILL BALWA, P.S. MAHALGAON, DISTT-ARARIA 8. BIBI SAYEEDA SHADAB D/O ABDUL QUAYUM R/O VILL BALWA, P.S. MAHALGAON, DISTT-ARARIA 9. BIBI GUL-E-RANG NAZNIN D/O MD. NAYEEMUDDIN R/O BALWA, P.S. MAHALGAON, DISTT-ARARIA 10. MD. TAHSEENUR RAHMAN S/O MD. TAIYAB HUSSAIN R/O VILL BALWA, P.S. MAHALGAON, DISTT-ARARIA 11. BIRENDRA KUMAR RAJAK S/O KAMESHWAR RAJAK R/O VILL BAIGNA, P.S. MAHALGAON, DISTT-ARARIA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA 2 3. THE DIRECTOR (PRIMARY EDUCATION), HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA 4. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION PURNEA DIVISION, PURNEA 5. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE ARARIA 6. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER ARARIA 7. MEMBER OF THE DISTRICT TEACHERS EMPLOYMENT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 8. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER ARARIA 9. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION ARARIA 10. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER JOKIHAT, DISTT-ARARIA 11. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER JOKIHAT, DISTT-ARARIA 12. THE MUKHIA , GRAM PANCHAYAT PACHHIYARI PIPARA, BLOCK-JOKIHAT, DISTT-ARARIA 13. THE PACHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ PACHHIYARI PIPRA, BLOCK-JOKIHAT, DISTT- ARARIA 14. MD. KHUSHNUD ALAM S/O ANWARUL HAQUE 15. MIR MUZAFFAR ALAM S/O MD. MIR MASIUR RAHMAN 16. BIBI SAJDA KHATOON W/O MD. ILHAZ R/O VILL BALUA, P.S.MAHALGAON, DISTT-ARARIA 17. MD. SAKIN ANWAR S/O ABDUL RAZZAK R/O VILL BALUA, P.S.MAHALGAON, DISTT-ARARIA 18. MD. TARIQ ANWAR S/O MOINUDDIN R/O VILL MARUA, P.S.AMOR, DISTT-PURNIA 19. SHUSHRUT ANAND SHANKAR S/O KRISHNA KUMAR VISHWAS R/O VILL AMGACHHI, P.S.MAHALGAON, DISTT-ARARIA ----------- 2 8.7.2010 Heard Mr. N.K.Agrawal,learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of the writ petition (CWJC No. 9544 of 2010), learned State Counsel and learned Counsel for private respondent nos. 14 to 17. By this writ petition, petitioners challenge the order passed in Case no. 4 of 2009 by the District Teachers Appointments Appellate Authority, Araria being order dated 3 14.5.2010. By the said order the tribunal has held that the appointment of eleven petitioners as Panchayat Teachers is wrong and as such directed for re-counseling in respect of all persons. Mr. Agrawal’s grievance is short. He submits that the petitioners were neither made party to the proceedings nor noticed in the proceedings as opposite party to defend themselves. On the other hand, learned counsel for private respondents with reference to order in question submits that the order clearly shows that the tribunal had issued notice to all the parties including the petitioners to appear and give their statements. Mr. Agrawal submits that this is not in dispute. Merely calling one person for examination and recording of statement is not giving an opportunity to the person to oppose the application. A notice was must in that regard. Mere recording of statement of petitioners is not compliance of principle of natural justice. Having heard the parties, in my view, there is fetal error in the order of the tribunal. It is well established principle of natural justice that no party can be condemned without notice. Here private respondents have challenged the legality of appointment of petitioners. Thus, there was a lis as between the petitioners and the private respondents. The tribunal exercises 4 quasi judicial function and as such has to conduct its proceeding in a manner consistent with the principle of natural justice. Thus, the tribunal was duty bound to implead the petitioners as party respondents and then to issue notice to them to defend their selection. Instead what the tribunal did was put the petitioners in witness box to give their statements alone. Based on the statements, so recorded, the order has been passed i.e not the requirement of law. In this connection I may refer to the case of S.L.Kapoor Vrs.- Jagmohan and others. Since reported in AIR 1981SC 136 wherein the Apex Court has clearly held that the information furnished by the person on which action is based is not of any relevance, if it is furnished in a casual way or for some other purpose. The person proceeded against must know that he is being required to meet the allegations which might lead to a certain action being taken against him. If that is made known the requirements are met.” Here the petitioners were not noticed to defend themselves as opposite party. They were noticed to present themselves for recording their statements i.e not the procedure as required by law. That, in my view, vitiates the impugned order. Thus, the impugned order of the tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded to the tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The tribunal would be well advised to re- hear the matter and decide on merit in accordance with law. No notice need be issued to the petitioners afresh. 5 All petitioners would appear before the tribunal with a copy of this order and in their presence the tribunal would fix a date by which petitioners would file their show cause and thereafter the matter would continue expeditiously. The tribunal should decide the matter at the earliest preferably within forty five (45) days from the date of production of a copy of this order. So far as CWJC No. 9597 of 2010 is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his selection has not been disapproved by the tribunal still the tribunal has set aside his selection, which is not correct. All I can say is that the tribunal apparently found illegality and ordered for fresh counseling, so that every one must have a fair chance. As the order of the tribunal has been set aside and the matter remanded , petitioner of this writ application would have his stake before the tribunal once against, which the tribunal would consider and dispose of accordingly. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ applications stand disposed of. singh ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)