IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 6793 of 2010 1. SURAIYA AKRAM W/O JAWED ALAM R/O VILL HARDIYA , P.S.TURKAULIA, DISTT-EAST CHAMPARAN Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY, PRIMARY AND ADULT EDUCATION BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE COMMISSIONER -CUM-SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE EAST CHAMPARAN 5. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION EAST CHAMPARAN 6. THE MEMBER OF DISTRICT TEACHERS APPOINTMENT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL EAST CHAMPARAN 7. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BLOCK TURKAULIA, EAST CHAMPARAN 8. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER BLOCK TURKAULIA, EAST CHAMPARAN 9. THE MUKHIYA GRAM PANCHAYAT MAJURAHA HARDIYA , BLOCK TURKAULIA, DISTT-EAST CHAMPARAN 10. THE PANCHAYAT SACHIV , GRAM PANCHAYAT MAJURAHA HARDIYA, BLOCK TURKAULIA, DISTT-EAST CHAMPARAN ----------- 2 05.08.2010 The petitioner states that she had applied for the post of Panchayat Teacher in respect of Panchayat Hardiya in the district of Motihari, East Champaran. When she went to deposit the forms at Panchayat - Hardiya, mala fide they were not accepted. She then went to the Block Headquarters and deposited the forms there. They were forwarded to the Panchayat – Hardiya thereafter. She had about 89% marks in the Moulvi examination conducted by the Bihar State Madrasa Education Board which is equivalent to Intermediate. When the merit list was prepared, she did not find her name therein instead large numbers of candidates with inferior marks were placed in the merit list. Enquires revealed that on her form, Panchayat – Hardiya was struck off and it was written Panchayat – Raghunathpur. She immediately protested to the Block Development Officer (BDO) who enquired into the matter. He was informed that authorities in Panchayat – Hardiya did not consider the 2 application as the same had been struck off by someone and Raghunathpur had been written. Therefore, they were of the view that it is Raghunathpur Panchayat that should consider her application. Accepting that it was faulted, the BDO then, by his Memo No 446 dated 27.02.2009, forwarded her application to Panchayat Hardiya for consideration and directed the petitioner to appear for counselling which was scheduled on 28.02.2009. Petitioner could not appear for the counselling for obvious reason that the order and the letter was issued by the BDO on 27.02.2009 which was not received by the petitioner in time on the next day which was the day for counselling. Petitioner, accordingly, moved the Tribunal being the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Tribunal, East Champaran. Her appeal was registered as Appeal No 241 of 2008 but the same was dismissed by order dated 09.10.2009 against which the petitioner has come to this Court. The Tribunal merely held that as she has failed to turn up in the counselling on 28.02.2009, nothing could be done about it. In my view, the Tribunal is wrong. It is well settled that information to a person to obey the order and comply with it has to be given with sufficient time and sufficient notice. Such a short notice is impossible for compliance. That would be arbitrary. Petitioner was not at fault. Someone was playing mischief all along. The Tribunal should not have acted in a mechanical manner in which it did. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal, in so far as it relates to the petitioner, is set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner has learnt that in fact the counselling, that was held on 28.02.2009, was set 3 aside pursuant to reports of large scale irregularities by the Collector, Motihari on recommendation of the BDO and now counselling is fixed for 13th and 14th of August, 2010. If that be so then this Court directs that petitioner would be eligible to appear for the counselling for the post of Panchayat Teacher in the second phase for Panchayat – Hardiya and her selection would be, accordingly, finalised in accordance with law. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)