IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8861 of 2010 1. ARBIND BAITHA S/O SRI BAIDYANATH BAITHA R/O VILL.- NARAYAN PAKARI, P.O. DAMODARPUR, P.S. PIPRA, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN AT MOTIHARI, PRESENTLY WORKING AS A PANCHAYAT TEACHER IN NAVSRIJIT PRIMARY SCHOOL, KUWARPUR KANHI TOLA, GRAM PANCHAYAT- KUWARPUR, BLOCK- CHAKIYA, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN AT MOTIHARI 2. LAL BABU MUKHIYA S/O BIJALI MUKHIYA R/O VILL.- KUWARPUR, P.O. PARSHURAMPUR, P.S. PIPRA, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN AT MOTIHARI, PRESENTLY WORKING AS A PANCHAYAT TEACHER IN NAVSRIJIT PRIMARY SCHOOL, NARAYAN PAKARI MATH, GRAM PANCHAYAT- KUWARPUR, BLOCK- CHAKIYA, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN AT MOTIHARI VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT TEACHER APPOINTMENT APPELLATE AUTHORITY EAST CHAMPARAN AT MOTIHARI 5. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, EAST CHAMPARAN AT MOTIHARI DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN AT MOTIHARI 6. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, EAST CHAMPARAN AT MOTIHARI DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN AT MOTIHARI 7. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, CHAKIYA, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN AT MOTIHARI 8. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, CHAKIYA, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN AT MOTIHARI 9. THE MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, KUWARPUR BLOCK- EAST CHAMPARAN, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN AT MOTIHARI 10. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, KUWARPUR, BLOCK- EAST CHAMPARAN, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN AT MOTIHARI 11. DHANANJAY KUMAR S/O SRI JITU RAM R/O VILL.- MADHU CHAI, P.O. BHUWAN CHAPRA, P.S. CHAKIYA, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN AT MOTIHARI 12. VINAY KUMAR S/O LATE RAMDEO SAH R/O VILLAGE AND P.O. BARA BAZAR, SAHEBGANJ ROAD, P.S. CHAKIYA, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN AT MOTIHARI. ----------- 02 08.07.2010 The petitioners have come to this Court challenging the order as passed by the District Panchayat Teachers Appointment Appellate Tribunal, East Champaran at Motihari dated 28.04.2010. - 2 - They are aggrieved by the consequences of the said order in which proceedings they were not made a party. Shri Mangalam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that when initial appointments were made respondent nos.11&12 were appointed. Petitioners did not get appointment. There were allegations against the actions of the Selection Committee, which was enquired into by the Block Development Officer. He alleges that the Block Development Officer has found serious illegality in the selection process and, as such, set aside the entire selection process and ordered for re- counseling. As a consequence of this re-counseling, petitioners were selected and, inter alia, respondent nos.11&12 were left out, as they did not even appear for counseling. Subsequently, the said respondents moved this Court in a writ petition. The writ petitioners withdrew the petition to move the Appellate Tribunal. They moved the Tribunal, but while doing so, they did not make the petitioners party to the said proceedings, who had already been appointed and were working. Only the Panchayat Secretary and the Mukhiya were made party, who also did not appear before the Tribunal, they only sent copies of the record. The Appellate Tribunal on this ex parte appraisal of fact came to a finding that the respondents were removed without hearing. The Tribunal further found that the records did not depict any malpractice. The Tribunal, accordingly, without giving a chance to the petitioners, who were already working held that termination of services of two - 3 - respondents was bad and, as such, directed their reinstatement. The consequence being that respondent nos.11&12 being ordered to be reinstated and petitioners’ services were terminated. It is submitted that if anything at least petitioners were necessary parties to the proceedings before the Tribunal and that being so the order of the Tribunal passed in absence of necessary parties who were directly to be affected is liable to be set aside. Having heard the parties and considered the matter and having perused the order of the Tribunal in detail, it is very clear that the only opposite parties in those proceedings were Mukhiya and the Panchayat Secretary. No other person at least the petitioners were made parties, even though, the petitioners were directly affected. In that view of the matter, on this count alone the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside and is set aside as such. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to be heard afresh, after directing the applicants before it to add all persons likely to be affected as party in the proceedings. The newly added party would be entitled to bring on record such materials as they may be advised and the Tribunal would freshly adjudicate the matter after hearing all the parties and considering all the materials which is brought on record. As the matter relates to appointment of Panchayat Teachers, it is expected that the Tribunal would expedite the proceedings and take all necessary steps to decide the matters at least earlier but not later than three months from the date - 4 - of production of copy of this order before the Tribunal. Till final orders of the Tribunal, respondent nos.11&12, if they have already appointed, their appointment shall not be interfered with till the Tribunal finally adjudicates the matter. With these observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Trivedi (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)