IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.424 of 2010 1. MD. KASHIF REJA S/O MD. USHMAN ANSHARI R/O VILL.- CHHAURAHI, P.S.- BABUBARHI, DISTT.- MADHUBANI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE MADHUBANI 5. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION DISTT.- MADHUBANI 6. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER KHAZAULI, DISTT.- MADHUBANI 7. BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENTION OFFICER KHAZAULI, DISTT.- MADHUBANI 8. MUKHIA GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ MAHESHWARA BLOCK- BABUBARHI, DISTT.- MADHUBANI 9. PANCHAYAT SECRETARY MAHESHWARA PANCHAYAT BLOCK BABUBARHI, DISTT.- MADHUBANI 10. SANJEET KUMAR S/O RAMESHWAR RAI VILL.- DUDAHI, P.O. & P.S.- BABUBARHI, DISTT.- MADHUBANI ----------- For the Petitioner : Mrs. Alka Verma. For respondent no.10 : Mr. D.K. Sinha,Sr.Adv. For the State : Mrs. Hansha Jha, J.C. to S.C. 19. 5 16.7.2010 By this writ application, the petitioner challenges the order dated 6.11.2009 passed by District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority, Madhubani in Appeal Case no. 01/06/09. The said appeal was filed by respondent no.10 under rule 18 of the Bihar Primary Panchayat Teachers (Appointment and Service Condition)Rules, 2006. Respondent no. 10 has appeared and field counter affidavit as well as application for vacating the stay, which was granted by this Court earlier. Heard the parties and with their consent this 2 application is being disposed of at this stage itself. Petitioner had applied for the post of Panchayat Teacher in the year 2007. He was duly selected against non reserved category as a general teacher . It was noticed that the petitioner’s qualification was a Maulvi having passed examination, as conducted by Bihar State Madarsa Education Board, Bihar. Being aggrieved by the selection of petitioner, respondent no. 10, who was no.1 in the merit list filed application before the tribunal. Before the tribunal only Panchayat Secretary was made a party and he produced the records to justify non selection of respondent no.10 on the ground that though he was first in the merit list he did not turn up for counseling inspite of notice having been sent under certificate of posting and as such the writ petitioner , who was much lower, was selected. Before the tribunal, respondent no. 10 urged that otherwise selection of petitioner was bad inasmuch as there was no post for Urdu Teacher and as per rule 6 of the rule aforesaid a Maulvi can teach Urdu alone. Tribunal after examining the records and examining the witnesses clearly came to a finding that the letter sent under certificate of posting was at all to the petitioner much after the date of counseling . Petitioner could not be faulter. On the other aspect of Maulvi Teacher that as per rule 6 Maulvi is to be recruited as teacher where Urdu teaching is necessary. There was no such post at the instant 3 selection and thus he held that the petitioner was wrongly selected. This is the order that has been challenged by the petitioner before this Court. On behalf of the petitioner Mrs. Alka Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the tribunal suffers from a fundamental defect even though appointment of petitioner was directly challenged and the petitioner was a necessary party to the proceeding before the tribunal. She was neither made a party nor granted an opportunity to defend herself. On that ground alone, the order of the tribunal stands vitiated . She further submits that in view of clause 4 of the Government notification no. 3716, dated 23.10.2008, a complaint had to be filed within thirty days of appointment and the same not having been done, the complaint cannot be entertained by the tribunal. The order of the tribunal was bad on that ground also. She further submitted that in view of Government Circular no. 234, dated 23.1.2008, the Government has taken a decision to find a way to absorb the Maulvis at other places , who have been wrongly selected as general teacher. Lastly she submitted that now in the block itself there are schools in which Maulvis are required for teaching Urdu, as such she may be adjusted in those schools. Mr. D.K.Sinha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent no. 10 submits to the contrary. He submits that if the recruitment of petitioner suffer from a fundamental defect 4 then she has no case before this Court. Having considered the matter, in my view, as has been repeatedly held where there is a fundamental breach of principle of natural justice , the least that the Court can do is to give a chance to the party to plead his case and persuade the authority to decide otherwise. It may be that the result may be the same but at least rule of law would be preserved. Having considered this aspect of the matter, in my view, the order of the appellate tribunal, which is quasi judicial authority has to be set aside. The matter is remanded to the tribunal with a direction to respondent no. 10 to add petitioner and all other persons, who were likely to be affected, as opposite party in the proceeding and upon hearing the parties and considering the matter the tribunal would have to decide the matter afresh at the earliest. Let it be recorded that the tribunal is a quasi judicial authority and its order may not prejudice any one, which is not a party before it. In that view of the matter the order of tribunal is set aside. The matter is remanded to the tribunal to re-hear the matter in view of the observation and direction, as above. The writ application stands disposed of. singh ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)