IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14958 of 2008 BINAY KUMAR VERMA, SON OF SRI SURESHLAL DAS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- KAMALPUR, POST OFFICE, HANSA, POLICE STATION- RANIGANJ, DISTRICT- ARARIA. .. PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PURNIA. 5. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ARARIA. 6. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, ARARIA. 7. SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ARARIA. 8. DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND REFORMS, ARARIA. 9. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, RANIGANG, ARARIA. 10. BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSON OFFICER, RANIGANJ, ARARIA. 11. MUKHIYA, GRAM PACHAYAT RAJ GUNWANTI BLOCK, RANIGANJ, DISTRICT- ARARIA. 12. PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ GUNWANTI BLOCK RANIGANJ, DISTRICT- ARARIA. 13. PAPIL KUMAR SINGH SON OF JANARDAN PRASAD SINGH OF VILLAGE AND POST- HANSA, P.S. RANIGANJ, DISTRICT- ARARIA. … RESPONDENTS. ----------- 8. 15.04.2011 Heard both sides. The petitioner, in the year 2006, pursuant to advertisement and due selection process was selected and appointed as Panchayat Teacher. Respondent No.13, who has appeared and filed counter affidavit as well objected. The Selection Committee of the Panchayat inquired into the matter and found that Respondent No.13 though had higher marks had not appeared for counseling and as such was not selected. Respondent No.13 then filed objection before the Collector of the district. The Collector of the 2 district referred the matter to the Deputy Collector Land Reforms who in turn entrusted the inquiry to the Block Development Officer. Block Development Officer also inquired into the matter and held that the Respondent No.13 had not turned up for counseling and as such petitioner was appointed. Notwithstanding this, the Deputy Collector Land Reforms then directed that as Respondent No.13 was more meritorious he should replace the petitioner. It is the order of Deputy Collector Land Reforms against which this writ application has been filed challenging it inter alia, on the ground that under the Bihar Panchayat Teachers (Appointment and Service Condition) Rules, 2006 and in particular Rule-18 thereof at the relevant time Block Development Officer was the authority to decide the disputes. In this regard, the Block Development Officer had already inquired into the matter and found in favour of the petitioner. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms had no authority to sit in appeal over it. It appears as against the order of Deputy Collector Land Reforms, petitioner had filed various representations including one to the Lokayukt, before coming to the Court. While the writ petition was pending. Lokayukt referred the matter to the District Collector. This was in the year 2008. By then the 2006 Rules had been amended. In 2008 the dispute resolution forum of Block 3 Development Officer was replaced by the District Appellate Authority. The Collector now referred the matter to the appellate authority. The appellate authority upon notice to the parties including the petitioner passed orders for holding fresh counseling. Pursuant to the fresh counseling, Respondent No.13 has been selected. Petitioner by interlocutory application has sought to challenge these subsequent orders and the interlocutory application had been allowed and notices were issued to Respondent No.13, who as noted above has appeared and filed a counter affidavit. Having heard the parties, in my view, the writ application is to be allowed. Firstly, it must be remembered that statutorily a forum for resolution of dispute had been created in terms of Rule 18 of the aforesaid Rule. That initially provided and invested the Block Development Officer with the jurisdiction to decide the matter. As noted above, the Block Development Officer inquired into the matter and clearly held in favour of the petitioner. The clear finding was that Respondent No.13 did not turn up for counseling. That in my view ended the matter. However, the order of the Deputy Collector Land Reforms thereafter cannot be sustained inasmuch as he had no authority in the matter. It is well settled that once a statutory authority is created then no other authority superior or otherwise can 4 interfere in the matter. It is well established that once a procedure has been prescribed for doing an act then the act has to be done in that manner and all other modes are prohibited as held in the case of Hukam Chand Shyam Lal Vrs Union of India and Others, reported in A.I.R. 1976 SC 789 and in particular paragraph 18 thereof. Now, I must consider the order of the Appellate tribunal. As noted above, Rule-18, first invested the Block Development Officer with the jurisdiction to decide such disputes. Late in the year 2008, Block Development Officer was substituted by the appellate authority. It was now a change of forum with the jurisdiction remaining the same. Once the matter had already been decided by the Block Development Officer the same matter could not be taken by the appellate authority. It is not an authority above the Block Development Officer. In view of the aforesaid matter the order of the appellate authority cannot be sustained. There is yet another reason for setting aside the order of the appellate authority. The appellate authority in its order had not disputed that Respondent No.13 had not come for counseling. It has not disputed that excluding Respondent No.13, petitioner was rightly selected. Those were sufficient for the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal. It has no inherent jurisdiction to pass orders beyond the dispute. 5 Having noticed the two facts, it should have disposed of the appeal accordingly but to do substantial justice it passed an order for re-counseling. That was impermissible. The tribunal has no such inherent power. In that view of the matter, the order of the Deputy Collector Land Reforms and the order of the appellate authority are set aside. It is directed that the petitioner would be reinstated and for all purposes be deemed to be working with all consequential benefits. The appointment of Respondent No.13, consequently in place of petitioner is, thus set aside. After the order was dictated, learned counsel for the Respondent No.13 insisted that this Court should once again adjudicate upon the matter. He submits that pursuant to order of the tribunal petitioner did not appear for the re- counseling and as such Respondent No.13 was rightly selected. As, I have already indicated above, the order of the tribunal was itself was without jurisdiction and petitioner was not required and submit to the said order passed without jurisdiction. It is next contended that the original Selection Committee consisted of two members only. Whether the original Selection Committee was of two members or four members are little difference. It was a body that did all the selection and it is not the case of the Respondent No.13 that only for the purposes of selecting 6 the petitioner a special body was created. The selection committee selected large number of persons and Respondent No.13 did not appear for the counseling. It is well settled principle that though there may be a defect in constitution of the tribunal, the function performed and the order passed by the tribunal de facto are not invalidated. They are performing public duty and, thus, their decisions are valid as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Gokaraju Rangaraju Vrs State of Andhra Pradesh And Achanti Sreenivasa Rao and others Vrs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in A.I.R. 1981 Supreme Court page 1473. Moreover, as the Respondent No.13 had not turned up for counseling at the original stage it is not open for him to raise these objections. The writ application is, thus, allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions. Ibrar/- ( Navanati Prasad Singh, J.)