IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.710 of 2010 1. KIRAN KUMARI D/O SRI RADHIKA HARIZAN R/O BADDI VISHAHAR, P.S.BARAHAT,DISTT-BANKA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR , THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DISTRICT TEACHERS APPOINTMENT APPELLATE AUTHORITY BANKA THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BANKA 4. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER KATORIA, P.S. KATORIA, DISTT-BANKA 5. THE MUKHIYA OF GRAM PANCHAYATI RAJ MANIYA, P.S.KATORIYA,DISTT-BANKA 6. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY OF THE GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ MANIYA, P.S.KATORIYA,DISTT- BANKA 7. MR. AJEET KUMAR SINGH S/O SRI SHALIGRAM SINGH R/O VILL +P.O.RANGHATTA, P.S. KATORIYA, DISTT-BANKA with CWJC No.745 of 2010 1. HARISH KUMAR MADHUKAR S/O SRI SUKDEO PANDIT R/O VILL KARHARIA,P.O.+P.S.+DISTT-BANKA 2. HEERALAL SONA S/O SRI VIRENDRA KUMAR VEER R/O VILL +P.O.KATORIA, P.S.KATORIA,DISTT-BANKA 3. DAMAYANTI KUMARI D/O RAMASHISH RAI R/O RANYODHA, P.S.DHORAIYA,DISTT-BANKA 4. VINITA KUMARI D/O SRI VISHWANTH BHAGAT R/O VILL JANDAHA, P.S.KATORIA, DISTT-BANKA 5. USHA KUMARI D/O SRI AMBIKA RAUT R/O MOH ISHAK CHAK, P.S.ISHAK CHAK,DISTT-BHAGALPUR 6. RANJIT KUMAR S/O SRI BINDESHWARI PRASAD SINGH R/O VILL RASIDPUR,P.S.BATH, DISTT- BHAGALPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GOVT.OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DISTRICT TEACHERS APPOINTMENT APPELLATE AUTHORITY BANKA THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BANKA 4. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER KATORIA, P.S. KATORIA, DISTT-BANKA 5. THE MUKHIYA OF GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ MANIA,P.S.KATORIYA, DISTT-BANKA 2 6. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY OF GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ MONIA, P.S.KATORIYA, DISTT- BANKA 7. MR. AJEET KUMAR SINGH S/O SRI SHALIGRAM SINGH R/O VILL +P.O. RANGHATTA, PS.KATORIYA, DISTT-BANKA with CWJC No.1959 of 2010 1. SMT.RANJANA KUMARI W/O SHRI AJIT KUMAR SINGH R/O MOH-RANGHATTA, PS- KATORIA, BLOCK KATORIA, DISTT- BANKA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY CUM COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT BIHAR, VIKASH BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BANKA 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, BANKA 5. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, BANKA 6. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, KATORIA,BANKA 7. THE MUKHIYA, MANIA PANCHAYAT, BLOCK KATORIA, DISTT- BANKA 8. THE PANCHAYAT SEVAK, MANIA PANCHAYAT, BLOCK KATORIA, DISTT- BANKA ----------- 4 27.8.2010 C.W.J.C.No. 710 and C.W.J.C.No. 745 both of 2010 are by Panchayat Teachers, who are duly selected and appointed, whose appointments have been cancelled by the order of District Teacher Appointment Appellate Authority, Banka in Case no. 610/13.05.2009 and 708/18.07.2009. C.W.J.C.No.1959 of 2010 is by one Smt. Ranjana Kumari for implementation of the aforesaid order of the tribunal. Heard Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned Senior Counsel, in support of first two writ petitions in which Mr. S.D. 3 Sanjay ,learned counsel, opposed the writ petitions and Mr. S.D. Sanjay, learned counsel appearing in support of third writ partition is opposed by Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh. The facts are lie in a very narrow compass. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in first two writ petitions submits that the order of the tribunal is not sustainable on several grounds primarily first that the complainant before the tribunal has no locus standi to move an application, secondly the application was filed beyond the time prescribed and thirdly the tribunal has passed order without notice and without hearing the affected parties. On the other hand, Mr. S.D. Sanjay, submits that the whole selection process being vitiated, any person could have brought this fact to the notice of the tribunal. He submits that because of gross irregularity committed in the selection, the tribunal rightly interfered and this Court should not interfere in the matter. So far as third writ petition is concerned, the consequence would depend upon the result of first two writ petitions. Having heard the parties and considered the matter, in my view, the first two writ petitions must succeed. Firstly they must succeed on the third ground that affected parties are not heard. It is elementary principle of law that no order can be passed against a person adverse to him without granting him 4 opportunity of hearing. It must be remembered that the tribunal, so constituted, is a quasi judicial function and has to comply with principle of natural justice. Thus, the order of the tribunal being in violation of principle of natural justice cannot be upheld and has to be quashed. In view of the findings, as aforesaid, it is not necessary for me to decide the other issues though I may brought notice the same because of ultimate order I propose to pass. Apart from other issue, Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh submits that the complainant before the tribunal had no locus standi to maintain the action. Mr. S.D. Sanjay submits to the contrary , though admits, that the applicant before the tribunal was the husband of one of the aspirants to the post of Panchayat Teacher and not the applicant herself. This is a question of locus standi to maintain a complaint. I may here notice that the tribunal has been constituted under rule 28 of the Bihar Primary Panchayat Teachers (Appointment and Service Condition)Rules, 2006. It is thus a tribunal of limited jurisdiction. It has no inherent power to entertain public petition. It relates to matters of appointment and service condition. Thus before a person can move the tribunal or the tribunal entertain a complaint, it must be shown that the complainant has locus standi. This matter which the tribunal would be required to examine. The other important aspect is with regard to limitation . Under rule 18 , as was originally 5 enacted, a complaint has to be filed before the BDO and it was specifically provided that such a complaint had to be filed within thirty days . The period of thirty days was not extendable. Thus, Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh submits that the complainant even if he has locus standi had to move the application within thirty days and not after three years of the selection process. In view of the findings given by this Court in respect of the first issue, it is necessary to set aside the order of the tribunal and remand the matter to the tribunal for fresh consideration on all aspects that may be raised including those noted above after due notice to all the parties So far as petitioners in first two writ petitions are concerned, no notice is required to be issued to them as they are aware of the order passed by this Court and it is their responsibility to serve a copy of this order to the tribunal and request for fixing a date for re-initiating the proceeding. As the matter relates to recruitment of the year 2006, the tribunal should decide the matter at an early date preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order before the tribunal. In view of order passed in first two writ petitions, no order need be passed in third writ application. With the aforesaid observations and directions all these three writ applications are disposed of. singh ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)