IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12313 of 2010 1. BIBI NAJROON NISSA D/O MD. TAUHID ALAM R/O VILL.- BARHAT, P.O.+P.S.- PALASI, DISTT.- ARARIA 2. MD. SHAMSHAD ALAM S/O JAHIRUDDIN R/O VILL.- BARHAT, P.S. PALASI, DISTT.- ARARIA 3. AISHA KHATOON D/O JAMILUDDIN R/O VILL.+P.O. DEHTI, P.S. PALASI, DISTT.- ARARIA 4. MD. ABDUL QUAIYOOM S/O MD. KAJMUL HUSSAIN R/O VILL.- BARHAT, P.O.+P.S. PALASI, DISTT.- ARARIA 5. MD. NAIYAR ALAM S/O KHAJA HUSSAIN R/O VILL.- BARHAT, P.O.+P.S. PALASI, DISTT.- ARARIA 6. MD. MASROOR ALAM S/O ABDUL KAYUM R/O VILL.- DEHTI, P.O. DEHTI, P.S. PALASI, DISTT.- ARARIA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA 2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA 3. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ARARIA 4. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, ARARIA 5. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, PALASI, DISTT.- ARARIA 6. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA 7. BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, PALASI, DISTT.- ARARIA 8. MUKHIA GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ CHAHATPUR BLOCK PALASI, P.S. PALASI, DISTT.- ARARIA 9. PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, CHAHATPUR, P.S. PALASI, DISTT.- ARARIA 10. NIYOJAN SAMMITTEE GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, CHAHATPUR, P.S. PALASI, DISTT.- ARARIA 11. MUNGESH ALAM S/O SAMIRUDDIN R/O VILL.- BAIRGACHHI, P.S. PALASI, DISTT.- ARARIA 12. MD. SAHBAZ ALAM S/O MD. GAYASUDDIN R/O VILL.- NORTH DEHTI P.S. PALASI, DISTT.- ARARIA 13. RAHAT PARVEEN D/O RANJAN ALI R/O VILL.- DEHTI, P.S. PALASI, DISTT.- ARARIA 14. RAJDA KHATOON D/O RANJAN ALI R/O VILL.- DEHTI, P.S. PALASI, DISTT.- ARARIA 15. SABNAM ARA D/O ENAMUL HAQUE R/O VILL.- PAIK TOLA, P.S. GARBEHELI, DISTT.- ARARIA 16. RUKSANA KHATOON D/O ALIMUDDIN R/O VILL.- DEHTI, P.S. PALASI, DISTT.- ARARIA 2 17. ABHISHEK BACHHAN S/O RAM PRASAD YADAV R/O VILL.- KACHMAH, P.S. PALASI, DISTT.- ARARIA 18. MD. SARWAR ALAM S/O FUL MOHAMMAD R/O VILL.- JOGJAN, P.S. PALASI, DISTT.- ARARIA ----------- 2 25.8.2010 The petitioners have challenged the order of District Teacher Appointment Appellate Tribunal, Araria passed in Case no. 42 of 2009 dated 12.7.2010.By the said order, the tribunal has set aside the appointment of the petitioners, who had been selected as Panchayat Teachers under Bihar Primary Panchayat Teacher (Appointment and Service Condition) Rules, 2006.These appointments were made in the year 2006/2007 and the appointments were challenged before the tribunal in 2009. Mr. N.K.Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of the writ petition submits that from bare perusal of the order of the tribunal would show that the petitioners’ appointments were being set aside by the tribunal without petitioners being made a party to the appeal and without the petitioners being noticed and heard in the matter. Mr. Rajesh Verma, leaned counsel for the State points out that the petitioners had been noticed by the tribunal to give their statements. The notices are appended to the writ petition. They appeared before the tribunal and the tribunal appears to have recorded their statements , which is apparent from the order of the tribunal. He thus submits that it cannot be said that the order was passed without due notice to the 3 petitioners or without hearing the petitioners. Mr. Agrawal to the contrary submits that noticing a person to enter defence is one thing and noticing a person to give his statement is another. What is of essence is that a person has to be given notice to defend himself and then the person would be in a position to rebut the allegation made against him and bring on record materials in support of his rebuttal whereas when a person is called upon to make a statement then except answering the question as put by the tribunal, he is unable to put up his defence in any manner much less effectively . In this respect reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Md. Iftekhar Alam -v- The State of Bihar & ors. being CWJC No. 9597 of 2010 and analogous cases, disposed of on 8.7.2010 wherein under similar circumstances relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of S.L.Kapoor – Vrs.- Jagmohan & ors. Since reported in AIR 1981 SC 136, this Court set aside the order of the tribunal. Mr. Agrawal has also submitted that the selection and appointment having taken place in the year 2006/2007, the tribunal was not competent to entertain the challenge in the year 2006. In view of the fact that as per Government’s Notification no. 3716, dated 23.10.2008 it was clearly provided that an appeal to the tribunal would have to be preferred within thirty days, as such the appeal ought not to have been entertained. For 4 the said proposition, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Md. Naushad Alam –v- The State of Bihar & ors. Being CWJC No.12248 of 2010. Having considered the matter, in my view, the writ petition must succeed. The tribunal must make petitioners a party to the appeal and then grant them opportunity to file their defence. It is thereafter that the tribunal would hear the matter and pass appropriate orders in that regard. Merely calling upon a person and recording a statement is not compliance of natural justice. The tribunal would also consider the question of delay in filing the appeal before the tribunal and the consequence thereof and any other issue that may be raised calling upon, the tribunal to decide the same. As this is an old matter, it is directed that the tribunal should decide the matter within three months after hearing all the parties. The order of the tribunal, as impugned, is accordingly set aside and the matter is remanded to the tribunal for decision in accordance with law, as indicated above. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. singh ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)